Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff ReportEastbank LLC Minor Subdivision - Exhibits Administrative Review (File MISA-8259) Applicant is Eastbank, LLC July 29, 2015 Exhibit Letter (Numerical) Exhibit Description 1 Public Hearing Notice Information 2 Receipts from Mailing Notice 3 Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended 4 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 5 Application 6 Staff Report 7 Referral Comments from Garfield County Road and Bridge (dated May 19, 2015) 8 Referral Comments from Mountain Cross Engineering (dated May 19, 2015) 9 Referral Comments from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (dated May 19, 2015) 10 Referral Comments from the Colorado Department of Transportation (dated April 29, 2015) 11 Memo from Gale Carmoney of the Garfield County Community Development Department (dated June 25, 2013) 12 Memo from Gale Carmoney of the Garfield County Community Development Department (dated November 20, 2013) 13 Referral Comments from the Colorado Geological Survey (dated May 19, 2015) 14 Referral Comments from the Roaring Fork School District (dated May 15, 2015) 15 Referral Comments from the Glenwood Springs Fire Department (dated May 11, 2015) 16 Proof of Publication 17 Referral Comments from the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (dated May 19, 2015) 18 Referral Comments from Garfield County Vegetation Management (dated May 20, 2015) 19 Timeline Extension and Waiver Request (dated May 28, 2015) 20 Timeline Extension Request (dated June 29, 2015) 21 Referral Comments from Mountain Cross Engineering (dated July 17, 2015) 22 Referral Comments from the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (dated June 29, 2015) 23 Referral Comments from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (dated July 7, 2015) 24 Letter from the Roaring Fork School District (dated July 17, 2015) 25 Memo from Resource Engineering (dated May 18, 2015) 26 Memo from Resource Engineering (dated May 26, 2015) Eastbank Minor Subdivision MISA-8259 July 29, 2015 DP PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS TYPE OF REVIEW Administrative Review — Minor Subdivision APPLICANT (OWNER) Eastbank, LLC REPRESENTATIVE Davis Farrar — Western Slope Consulting LOCATION The property is located south of the City of Glenwood Springs with access off County Road 154. LEGAL DESCRIPTION REQUEST Quarter: SW Section: 35 Township: 6 Range: 89 Subdivision: Eastbank Parcel 2 Lot Split Parcel 2A. Plat Rec#813402 on a property known by Assessor's Parcel No. 2185-353-04-001. Subdivision of a 38.2 acre parcel into 3 lots, Lot 1 — 4.187 acres, Lot 2 — 17.086 acres, and Lot 3 — 16.927 acres. WATER/SANITATION Well / Septic ZONING Rural COMPREHENSIVE PLAN City of Glenwood Springs - Urban Growth Area (UGA). I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL An Administrative application was submitted for a Minor Subdivision, with a request to subdivide an existing 38.2 acre parcel owned by Eastbank, LLC into three parcels. The Applicant's request is to create three new parcels from the existing 38.2 acres which lie south of the City of Glenwood Springs off County Road 154. The existing 38.2 acre parcel currently has two memorialized uses, for Inter -Mountain Waste and Recycling as well as Gould Construction. The history and uses were thoroughly evaluated and memorialized by Staff in 2013 (Exhibit 11 and 12). The proposed three lot subdivision is requested to facilitate the development of a Warehouse and Distribution Center on proposed Lot 1 (4.187 acres) for Federal Express Ground (FedEx). The existing Inter -Mountain Waste and Recycling as well as Gould Construction uses are proposed to be on Lot 2 (17.086 acres) while the vacant remainder property is to be Lot 3 (16.927 acres). This Administrative Review application for Minor Subdivision was submitted simultaneously with an application for a Major Impact Review for the FedEx Warehouse and Distribution Facility. The Application for a Warehouse and Distribution Facility was approved by the BOCC on July 20, 2015 with the condition that a permit for the Facility will not be issued until this Subdivision is complete. The Applicant is also completing a Boundary Line Adjustment with the adjacent property owner (RE -1 School District) to the north, which is to be completed prior to approval of the Minor Subdivision. All three parcels are to be served by individual wells. A well currently exists on proposed Lot 2 (Inter -Mountain Waste and Recycling and Gould Construction) while a new well has been drilled to serve proposed Lot 1 for the FedEx facility. A new well permit has been submitted for Lot 3 while the required tests are proposed to be conducted as a condition of approval. An Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) currently exists on Lot 2 for Inter - Mountain Recycling and Gould Construction. A new OWTS is to be utilized for the proposed FedEx facility on Lot 1 as well as a new system on Lot 3. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE The parcel is currently developed with an Inter -Mountain Waste and Recycling facility and a Gould Construction facility as documented in a letter from Gale Carmoney, former Garfield County Code Enforcement Officer, dated November 20, 2013 (See Exhibit 12). The property sits generally between the RFTA Rio Grande trail, County Road 154 and the Roaring Fork River. In addition, the property was formerly used as a gravel pit, which has since been reclaimed. The Applicant describes the property as follows: The property is dominated by a series of relatively flat terraces situated at a prominent bend in the Roaring Fork River on the site of an old gravel pit. Each terrace is separated by a small, relatively steep slope that is characteristic of such river terraces in the Roaring Fork watershed. A dirt driveway passes through the property providing access from Old Highway. The upper terrace (on the east side of the property) is dominated by a flood irrigated hay field on the north with commercial development and the remnants of the old gravel operation. Another dirt driveway passes through this portion of the property paralleling the river to the west of the developed area. Outside of the hayfield and the developed areas, the vegetation is disturbed and quite sparse with large areas of bare soil. The slopes between the terraces are the most intact and the native plant communities that persist on those sites are likely remnants of the vegetation that once dominated the property. 2 RE 1 School Dist Parcel Subject Parcel Vicinity Map 3 Aerial View of Subject Property (Lot lines are approximate) 4 REI School District Original Eastbank Parcel Inter -Mountain Site — Approx. 3.9 acres 41 Aerial View of Subject Property — Inter -Mountain Waste and Recycling and Gould Construction Areas (lines are approximate) 111. WAIVER REQUESTS FROM STANDARDS The Applicant has requested the following waivers from the Standards: • The Applicant has requested a waiver from Section 7-107 Access and Roadways. IV. AUTHORITY — APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. Section 5-301 of the Land Use and Development Code (LUDC), designates the division of land that creates no more than 3 parcels, is served by a private well or water supply entity and does not require the extension, construction, or improvement of a County right-of-way, as requiring Administrative Review. 5 k. n • 0.01..0 A•MM 1.i. 03 00.0001 -.. *NI'DN11f33N19N3 AMLLNf1O3 H91H CCY71O-1O0 AUMOD a GIUMI NOIMAIOIIIIu RgNlh 3 l LNVtSfl .;e la 1! :IEEE EEREE�IEEEaEaEEE 0 0 VI 0 J J z 1--� a w w w CR 154 New Parcels , of 3' 11,1 flee C Site Plan 6 ImirguiRIFERAiligiumil ikliiiifigiEguCilIELTE muniumsismisisal::::::: .;e la 1! :IEEE EEREE�IEEEaEaEEE 0 0 VI 0 J J z 1--� a w w w CR 154 New Parcels , of 3' 11,1 flee C Site Plan 6 B. Section 4-103 of the LUDC sets forth the Administrative Review Procedures by which the current Application is being considered. C. Article 7 of the LUDC sets forth General approval standards in Division 1, General Resource Protection Standards in Division 2 and Site Planning and Development Standards in Division 3. Minor Subdivisions are also subject to Section 5-301(C) and 5- 402(F). The standards are addressed in the Application submittals and in the Staff Analysis section of the Staff Report. V. PUBLIC AND REFERRAL COMMENTS The Applicant has provided documentation that all required notice mailings have been completed in accordance with the LUDC. No public comments were received as a result of the public notice. Referral Comments received on the Application are attached as Exhibits and summarized below: A. Garfield County Consulting Engineer, Mountain Cross Engineering (See Exhibit 8): • Noted that the water quality reports for the new wells did not have results for Coliform. • Noted that the Lot 3 well has not been constructed or tested. • Noted that the traffic study did not include impacts from the proposed single family home. Suggested that the Applicant address whether the increased traffic would adversely change the results of the Traffic Study. • Noted that the application only addresses detention for the FedEx facility. Suggested that the Applicant discuss what is proposed for detention for the other lots of the proposed subdivision. • Noted that the existing driveway access to Lot 2 and Lot 3 does not meet County standards. Suggested that the Applicant provide an alternative design that meets County standards. • Noted that there are ditches on the Lot 3 and the parallel to CR154 on Lot 1 and suggested that the Applicant address what is to be done with these ditches and the irrigation water. • Noted the Applicant will need to obtain a Driveway permit from Garfield County. • Suggested the Applicant revise the design of the FedEx driveway intersection with CR154 to meet Garfield County driveway permit requirements of 3% for 30'. The driveway is currently identified as 7.91%. • Noted that the grates for some of the area inlets are below the proposed weir spillway elevation which could cause the piping and inlets to surcharge and create areas of ponding within the site. Suggests that the Applicant verify the detention pond elevations with the proposed inlet elevations and revise as necessary. • Noted that while the traffic study shows only small impacts to the existing road queuing and overall level of service impacts from the proposed FedEx facility, the circumstances could be different should the Roaring Fork School District construct schools on the adjacent parcel which would access CR154 through Lot 2. As a 7 result, it is suggested that "provisions should be made to allow the proposed access to be combined to a future access to the south that would likely provide better sight distance, allow more room for turn lanes, and provide longer queue lengths." B. Garfield County Consulting Engineer, Mountain Cross Engineering (See Exhibit 21). • Noted that the water quality reports for the new wells did not have results for Coliform. • Noted that Proposed Lot 3 well has not been constructed or tested. The Applicant should provide results of the pump and water quality tests. • Noted that the stormwater detention was only addressed on the FedEx parcel. A Condition of Approval requiring that future development manage their onsite stormwater is recommended. In addition, a Condition of Approval that the existing commercial uses are utilizing BMPs to treat storm water discharge, especially considering the close proximity of this development to the Roaring Fork River, is recommended. • Noted that the existing driveway across Lot 2 does not meet County standards and has grades of 17%. The Applicant has requested a waiver from the County standards for this roadway. C. Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) (See Exhibit 9 and Exhibit 23): • Noted that as long as the wells are used in accordance with their permits and proposed uses, the wells will not cause material injury and supply should be adequate. D. Garfield County Road and Bridge (See Exhibit 7): • Noted that at peak traffic volumes, vehicles could back up across the RFTA trail. • Indicated that provided the uncertainty surrounding future development in the area, it is suggested that the driveways remain as proposed. • Noted that a Driveway Permit would need to be obtained through Road and Bridge. E. Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) (See Exhibit 13): • Indicated that the "site does not appear to contain or be exposed to any geologic hazards that would preclude the proposed uses and density". • Noted that the area is prone to subsidence and sink holes. F. Glenwood Springs Fire Department (See Exhibit 15): • Noted that the Department will require, through the International Fire Code, that the Applicant hire a Fire Protection Engineer (SFPE) to review the proposed fire protection plans. 8 • Suggests that the Applicant work with surrounding property owners to develop a shared fire protection system. G. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) (See Exhibit 10): • Dan Roussin, Permit Unit Manager, indicated that CDOT has no comments on this application. H. RE -1 School District (See Exhibit 14 and Exhibit 24): • Noted that the District owns an approximately 35 acre parcel to the north and west of the site under review. The District is in the early stages of planning for two possible schools which could be located on the site. The District is working with appropriate engineers to determine the traffic impacts from the development and ascertain the necessary requirements for safe access to the school facility. • Suggests increasing the size of the access easement which is to provide access to the District parcel to 60 feet. • Noted that the School District held a special meeting on July 20, 2015 to finalize the Boundary Line Adjustment, easements for the well, and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding vehicular access through Lot 2. I. Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) (See Exhibit 17 and Exhibit 22): • Noted that RFTA "does not see any major issues with either project (Minor Subdivision or Major Impact Review), with regard to public transit or the Rio Grande Trail" (Exhibit 17). • Noted that the proposed FedEx -School District consolidated access at the northernmost driveway will greatly increase traffic levels with FedEx delivery trucks, school delivery trucks, school buses, parents etc. • Noted that the stacking distance from the CR 154 Corridor crossing to the proposed consolidated access point appears to be insufficient (less than 200'). • Noted that if additional traffic adversely impacts safety for Corridor users at this location, it may be advisable to install stop signs along CR 154 to stop cars when trail users are present. This would be inverse of the current usage, where trail users must yield to road users • Noted that the traffic study where the existing CR 154 annual average daily traffic (AADT) data was not found. We see a projection of an additional 240 AADT. Baseline traffic data would help RFTA better understand the extent of the proposed increase in traffic crossing the Rio Grande right-of-way • Noted that Per RFTA's Corridor trail counters from May 2014 to May 2015, approximately 41,517 users crossed near the CMC turnoff(approximately 1.5 miles to the south of the project site); and approximately 45,340 users crossed near Holy Cross Energy (approximately 1.5 miles to the north of the project site). This data is provided to show that there is already a very high level of users in the project site vicinity. 9 • Noted that RFTA would value Corridor bike/ped usage data that is incorporated into future traffic studies as yet another adjacent road/trail segment to be measured. • Noted that RFTA would most likely engage its rail engineers in a review of proposed crossings of the Corridor. • Noted that if there is an attempt to consolidate the FedEx and School District projects into one, RFTA would appreciate the opportunity to revisit the these comments as there may be some new mutually beneficial infrastructure solutions that would result from project consolidation. • Noted that the District may need 50-70' of cut/fill access for the southernmost drive to satisfy County infrastructure standards. RFTA believes that this could overlap into RFTA's 200' wide federal land grant section of the Rio Grande Corridor. J. Garfield County Vegetation Management (See Exhibit 18): • Requests that the Applicant manage the County listed noxious weeds identified on the property including Scotch Thistle and Russian -Olive by October 31, 2015. Other referral agencies that did not provide comments are Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the Town of Carbondale, the City of Glenwood Springs, Garfield County Emergency Management, Garfield County Environmental Health and the Garfield County Sheriff's Office. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS Article 7, Division 1: General Standards 1. Section 7-101: Compliance with Zone District Use Regulations The development on the property is in general conformance with the dimensional standards for the Rural zone district. The minimum lot size in the Rural zone district is 2 acres while the smallest lot proposed is 4.187 acres. 2. Section 7-102: Conformance with Comprehensive Plan and compliance with IGAs Garfield County has an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for Development Review with the City of Glenwood Springs as signed on May 7th, 2001 (Reception number 580572). Consistent with the IGA, County staff referred the initial application to the City to receive comments. No comments have been received from the City, however. As the subject property is within the City of Glenwood Springs Urban Growth Area, the County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 defers to the Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan of 2011 for guidance. Excerpts from the Land Use Description Section Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 - Section 1, Urban Growth Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination, as 10 well as the City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan of 2011 are provided below. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 Chapter 2 — Growth in Urban Growth Areas The Plan recognizes the need for existing municipalities to be able to gradually expand into immediately surrounding areas. The county supports and encourages orderly expansion of existing communities. This Plan recognizes existing municipal plans and strongly supports and encourages infill and redevelopment of existing communities. These growth areas are the preferred locations in Garfield County for growth that require urban level services. They are also the preferred locations for commercial and employment uses that can take advantage of supporting infrastructure and a close by client base that reduces travel demands. The most effective way to encourage growth in designated and planned UGAs will be by ensuring the following: i. Each municipality's plan for its UGA is incorporated into the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. ii. Urban developments in the UGAs are encouraged to annex into the respective municipality. iii. If there is a public benefit to allowing development within a UGA prior to annexation, the County and municipality will cooperatively endeavor to facilitate such development through such means as: 1. County zoning in the UGAs adjusted to a close approximation of the municipality's plans. 2. Development in the UGA is required to obtain a local review with comment (not approval) before submitting for county review. 3. A procedure for municipal/county review and recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners will be developed in an IGA with each community. 4. Each community is expected to extend services and infrastructure to development in the UGA that substantially complies with their plan for the UGA (landowners and the respective municipality are strongly encouraged to enter into pre -annexation agreements that provide commitments with respect to extensions of services and infrastructure, densities, etc.). Section 1 - Urban Growth Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination Garfield County has worked with municipalities to direct development to UGAs where public services and infrastructure are provided in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Intergovernmental cooperation between municipalities and other public agencies has demonstrated successful collaboration and has resulted in the creation of new partnerships and collaborative efforts on behalf of the residents of the county. Policies: 1. Within defined UGAs, the County Comprehensive Plan, land use code revisions, and 11 individual projects, will be consistent with local municipal land use plans and policies. 2. Projects proposed adjacent to local municipalities requiring urban services will be encouraged to annex into the affected jurisdiction if contiguity exists. 3. Development in an UGA will have land use and street patterns that are compatible with the affected municipality. 4. Within a locally planned UGA, development Applicants will be required to obtain project review comments from the local community prior to submitting for county review. The process should be defined in an executed IGA. City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan of 2011 Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) The Urban Growth Boundary represents an area that can support urban -level development. Urban development is characterized by densities typical of urbanized areas and by the types of services required to support that development such as water, wastewater, roads, police and emergency services, and other similar services. It also represents an area of future annexation. Although this area lies outside of the city and is subject to Garfield County land use requirements, according to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, development and land use within the Urban Growth Boundary should be consistent with the future land use objectives of the municipality. Both the Garfield County and Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plans recommend entering into Intergovernmental Agreements to assure mutually acceptable land use and development within the Urban Growth Boundary and to determine a process by which land use proposals will be evaluated by both jurisdictions. The Urban Growth Boundary has been determined using the following criteria: • Ability of the City to provide adequate infrastructure, particularly water service, to new development without placing undue burdens on the City's ability to meet current municipal demands while maintaining adequate levels of service. • Areas where there would be a public benefit for the City to manage growth, giving consideration to visual impacts, economic impacts and benefits, open space and environmental benefits, and impacts on schools and other public facilities. • Areas which, if annexed to the City, would simplify the city limits and provide unity of services. • Location of existing topographical features which serve as opportunities or constraints to development. Low Density Residential Low Density Residential is a designation for land that is outside of the city limits but within the urban growth area. This designation consists of single-family residential development that is intended to maintain a rural character. Appropriate development densities will be determined by, among other things, current land uses, topographic constraints, existing 12 and future utility connections, and existing road networks. Land Uses Outside City Limits but within the Urban Growth Area Future land use designations have been applied to properties within the Urban Growth Area. It is intended that these properties within the Urban Growth Boundary be annexed into the city at some point in the future. Among other things, these future land use designations take into account current uses, topographic constraints, existing/future utility connections, existing road networks, and land uses on adjacent properties. Values and Vision for Economic Development Despite a decent level of diversification in the Glenwood economy, the region surrounding the city is greatly influenced by the mining, oil and gas, and construction -related industries. The influence that these industries have on the region makes Glenwood Springs susceptible to the associated boom and bust economic cycles that are typical of western Colorado. Therefore, the City must work to further diversify its economy in order to minimize the impacts of boom and bust cycles. While taking steps to continue diversifying the economy, the City should focus efforts on attracting high -paying jobs to help offset the abundance of low-paying jobs associated with the robust tourism and service industry. Community Goals Supported by Economic Development • Maintain Glenwood's role as a regional center Policies to Enhance Economic Development • The City should encourage the development of a well-trained workforce. • The City should continue to make improvements that enhance the community's quality of life and that make Glenwood Springs a place that is attractive for new businesses and their employees. • The City should actively pursue businesses and industries whose operations and products are compatible with the Glenwood Springs vision. Strategies and Actions to Promote Economic Development Attract Diverse Businesses and Industries - The City should diversify the economy in at least three major ways: creating a community where employers/employees want to live, creating opportunity for new and expanding local businesses, and actively seeking targeted businesses. Ensure an Attractive Community - Good jobs are provided by good employers. Good employers will locate in communities where they and their employees will want to and can afford to live. 13 Allocate Adequate Land - Adequate land for new industries and businesses is limited within city limits. However, what is available will need to be zoned to allow a business easy development. The City should consider revising the zoning code to allow for more flexibility of uses for a structure or site in order to better respond to the industrial and commercial real estate market. An adequate supply of attractive and accessible office space for professionals is also important. The City should consider adaptive reuse of structures and land availability prior to contacting targeted businesses. For new office and retail opportunities, the City should help facilitate redevelopment of existing retail buildings in order to meet evolving retail markets and community needs. To better understand the types of commercial office space needed in the community, the City should conduct an analysis on the amount of space currently existing. Options immediately adjacent to the city limits and within the Urban Growth Boundary should also be examined for the ability to accommodate business and industry. An example site is the parcel north of the Glenwood Springs Mall in West Glenwood where the City could assist in preparing it to become a mixed-use office area or business park. The City should also consider partnering with governments or organizations to plan and possibly develop an industrial park in the immediate area. In accordance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Policies, "Within defined UGAs, the County Comprehensive Plan, land use code revisions, and individual projects, will be consistent with local municipal land use plans and policies." To this end, the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan defers to the land use goals and policies of the local municipalities for land within the UGA. The City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property as Low Density Residential on the subject property. It is Staff's opinion that provided the City's policies on economic development as well as the language within the Low Density Residential designation that states that "Appropriate development densities will be determined by, among other things, current land uses, topographic constraints, existing and future utility connections, and existing road networks," the application is in general conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030. 14 * Doentown 0 Cey Leos — Pen Growth Boundary oES. UM — Future Stoat Area Q Downtew'h De elopner<AJMrq/ Boundary Misuse Prptenieon R..ere.de P.ueceon u c.h The 'blue tone' reflects me uppermost Iopo9raph,c arm of the Day's ability to provde gravity fee water generals 6.000 Peet lin elovabdn - tapr.way — City Streets County Roes • R'oers Parcels Ile Co$0*,S0h fi Pans Open Space Low tend,' Resderad Spyhe'Mry Resdtneat S11.4-tant10 Residents ta7 MW ace :t, 000.00d a)w.. The Ia.,d welwh Iho UGB ham the pont south e based on parcel tones and not water servze area low dense,' revs/central uses are desgnated n the area ume anne.atah to de Cey a complete and Planned Uwe Development or other development resew a approved Orientation Map Subject Parcel City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan of 2011 3. Section 7-103: Compatibility The intent of this subdivision is to facilitate the development of a FedEx Warehouse and Distribution Facility on proposed Lot 1. The proposed parcel sizes of approximately 4.187 acres, 17.086 acres and 16.9 acres is consistent with surrounding property sizes. To the east of the subject parcel is the RFTA Rio Grande Trail, County Road 154 and State Highway 82. The RE -1 School District owns an approximately 35 acre parcel directly north of this subject parcel. While the current use of this parcel is agriculture, Staff understands that the District has intentions to utilize the parcel for schools at some point in the future. Access to the District parcel is proposed to be via a 30 foot access easement across Lot 2 which connects to CR 154. In addition, a 68 foot roadway corridor has been provided to the parcel between the proposed FedEx Facility on Lot 1 and the Rio Grande Trail for an envisioned realigned CR 154. The uses on Parcel 2 include Inter -Mountain Waste and Recycling as well as Gould Construction. Both of these uses are light industrial in nature. Residential development exists across the Roaring Fork River to the south of the subject parcel. The Applicant has provided the following map identifying the surrounding uses. 15 Surrounding Land Uses within 1500' 4. Section 7-104: Sufficient, Adequate, Legal and Physical Source of Water The application indicates that all lots are to be served by individual wells. Proposed Lot 1 has an existing Monitoring Well Permit (# 296873), Lot 2 has an existing Well Permit (# 50236-F) and Lot 3 is in the process of obtaining a well permit (a signed application has been provided). The Application was referred to the Division of Water Resources for review (See Exhibit 9 and 23). The Division noted the following: It is our opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(l), that the proposed water supply can be provided without causing material injury to decreed water rights so long as the Applicant obtains (or maintains) well permits issued pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2) and the plan for augmentation operated by Basalt Water Conservancy District, for all wells in the subdivision and operates the wells in accordance with the terms and conditions of any future well permits. Provided the sustained well yield of each of the proposed wells is similar to Permit No. 296873 and 50236-F, the proposed water supply is expected to be physically adequate. 16 For the monitoring well located on Lot 1 (Permit No. 296873), the Applicant has provided a 4 -hour pump test conducted on March 3, 2015. The results of the pump test show a pump rate of 12.2 gallons per minute. In addition, the Applicant submitted a water quality test conducted from a sample collected at the time of the pump test. Resource Engineering evaluated the water quality results for Lot 1 with the following conclusion: The laboratory results for the water quality analysis indicate that the water meets all primary and secondary drinking water standards, except gross alpha. RESOURCE recommends retesting the well water to determine the sources of alpha activity and if the elevated level of gross alpha was an outlier. If necessary, appropriate treatment technology will be recommended based on the new test. The parameters related to taste and aesthetics, hardness and iron bacteria, can be addressed with standard water softening equipment to treat the hard water and the disinfection of the well to treat the iron bacteria. The water quality is suitable for domestic uses provided that appropriate treatment is provided for removal of gross alpha emitting particles, if necessary. The Applicant has since provided a letter from Resource Engineering (See Exhibit 25) indicating that the sample tested within the acceptable limits for gross alpha. The letter states that "The retest indicates that the Gross Alpha is less than the drinking water standards and the original result was likely an outlier." Both a water quantity and water quality test have been conducted on the existing well on proposed Lot 2. According to Resource Engineering, this well was constructed in 1967 and is approximately 70 feet deep. This well currently supplies two pressurized storage tanks and then the office and maintenance shops associated with the Inter -Mountain and Gould facilities. A pump test was conducted on March 3, 2015 and resulted in a pump rate of 20 gallons per minute while the permitted pumping rate is only 15 gallons per minute. A water quality test was also collected at the time of the pump test. An analysis from Resource Engineering state the following. The laboratory results for the water quality analysis indicate that the water meets all primary and secondary drinking water standards. The hard water can be addressed with standard water softening equipment. The water quality results indicate that the water in the well is suitable for domestic uses. For Lot 3, the Applicant has submitted a well permit application which has been submitted to the Division of Water Resources for review. As a condition of approval, Staff recommends that the Applicant obtain an approved well permit, conduct a 4 -hour pump test as well as a water quality test on the new well. A review by the Garfield County Contract Engineer (See Exhibit 8 and 21) noted that "the water quality reports for the existing and the new wells did not have results for coliform." 17 While results for Coliform were submitted for the well serving Lot 1 (See Exhibit 26), results have not been received for Lot 2. When the well for Lot 3 is drilled and tested, the water quality test results will need to include Coliform. Staff suggests a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to test the well on Lot 2 for coliform as required by the LUDC. 5. Section 7-105: Adequate Central Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems The Applicant is proposing to serve all three lots with an Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS). The Applicant's engineer has indicated that the nearest sanitary sewer connections are to the City of Glenwood Springs (7200 ft. away) and Iron Bridge (6000 ft. away). The Applicant's engineer has provided the following analysis of the proposed and existing OWTSs. 1. Lot 1 3.848 will have a Fedex transport facility which will have 58 fixture units or an estimated 54 GPM peak flow and 650 gpd use. With these design parameters the system will require a 1500 gallon septic tank and 105 Quick 4 infiltrators in a trench configuration. The site has sufficient area for this system. 2. Lot 2 is currently a waste and recycling operation (InterMountain Waste & Recycling LLC) located at 3927 County Road 154. The lot is proposed to be 17.42 acres and currently has minimal wastewater usage. Estimated use 300-500 gallons per day, which is accommodated by an existing on-site wastewater Treatment system, which is in good operation. 3. Lot 3 will be a new single family lot. Effluent flows are estimated to be 1000- 2000 gallons per day. This lot is 16.9+/- Acres and will easily have the ability to construct a standard septic system within the lot. As the exact placement of the OWTS on proposed Lot 3 has not been determined, it will be necessary for the Applicant to conduct percolation tests at the time of permit for the OWTS. 6. Section 7-106: Adequate Public Utilities Due to the distance from public water and sewer service, the Applicant is proposing to serve all lots with individual wells and OWTS. For proposed Lot 1 (FedEx), the Applicant's engineer has represented the following: The newly drilled well on Lot 1 that produces 12 gpm will be able to meet daily demands as well as provide storage for fire flows. This well flow will be pumped to the pump house treated with chlorine injection and pumped into a 120 gallon pressure tank for chlorine contact before entering the 18 potable system. Lot 1 will include 6 -inch and 10- inch diameter PVC C900 Class 250 pipe a 120 gallon small pressure tank a chlorine injection pump, a 200,000 gallon fire storage tank and a diesel fire pump. Lot 1 Fire demands according to the 2009 International Fire Code (IFC), the indicate proposed Fedex structure which will be a Type IB building that is 26,795 square feet 6 requires a fire flow of 3,500 gallons per minute for 3 hours, that can be reduced per the code up to 75% if the building is provided with an internal sprinkler system, which is proposed. With a 75% reduction the minimum flow would be 875 gpm. The sprinkler system demand which is attached indicates that 867.4 gpm in the most remote zone which would be required for 90 minutes. We have assumed for storage purposes 2 zones for 90 minutes plus a 500 gpm hose flow. This yields a flow of 867.4 gpm (1st zone), 755.8 gpm (2nd zone), and 500 gpm hose flow or 2123.2 gpm for 90 minutes. This totals 191,088 gallons. We are proposing a 200,000 gallon tank with a 2500 gpm diesel fire pump at 100psi. Code indicates that for up to 2250 gpm two hydrants should be provided with a maximum distance of 225 feet from point on street to hydrant. All fire hydrants, valves and other appurtenances shall be constructed in accordance to the Garfield County and local fire District Regulations. For proposed Lots 2 and 3, the Applicant's engineer has represented the following: Each single-family unit shall connect to it's own well and utilize the well based on the individual needs and building permit requirements. Lot 2 well is an existing well producing in excess of 20 GPM and historically has met the needs of this lot for many year. Lot 3 will be drilled upon plat approval. The Applicant states that the property is able to be served with electricity. Any future extensions need to be in compliance with State requirements and inspected by the State Electrical Inspector. The Applicant's engineer has stated the following: There is a three-phase overhead electrical feeder that is currently on lot 2 and is available to service the site. The feeder is located on the existing site as an overhead feed and currently feeds lot 2. We are proposing a new 3- phase overhead line to cross CR 154 to the proposed lot 1 that will serve the new Fedex facility. This line will come onto the property overhead and then run underground to the Fedex building. Lot 3 will be served off of an underground line located northwest of the northern corner of the lot and will be connected with a 30' utility easement. No gas service is currently adjacent to this property and no gas service is currently proposed. Any gas needs will be provided via propane tanks to be located on each lot if required. 19 7. Section 7-107: Access and Driveways a. The application was referred to the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department (see attached Exhibit 7). Road and Bridge noted that "at peak traffic volumes traffic could be backed up across the RFTA Trail...In reviewing the traffic volumes, turning templates, and the uncertainty of future development, I would propose the driveway stay where proposed." The Applicant would need to obtain all necessary driveway permits from Road and Bridge prior to construction. b. The Applicant's engineer has provided the following explanation of access to the proposed subdivision. The proposed subdivision includes three lots. Lots 1 and 2 both have access to County Road 154 ROW, which is an existing county minor collector (based on traffic counts)... Lot 3 will be accessed via a 30' private, non-exclusive access easement that contains a primitive driveway that will access to County Road 154 (until such time as future development shall occur, as stated by the submitted plat note requiring satisfaction of the then applicable Garfield County road standards). This lot will share access with Parcel 2B (Macgregor Residence) from the Eastbank Parcel 2 Lot Split and Parcel 1 of the Eastbank Lot Split (RE -1 School District). The accesses were reviewed by the Garfield County Contract Engineer (See Exhibit 8 and 21). It is noted that "The existing driveway access for Lot 2 is proposed to be used for Lot 3. This access does not meet County standards and has grades of 17.0% at the intersection. The Applicant has requested a waiver. Ultimately if this request is not granted, the Applicant would need to comply with County Road Standards." The Applicant's engineer has stated the following: The existing south access road is classified as a Primitive/Driveway per Table 7-107. The existing access has been adequate for the current uses at Eastbank Parcel2 Lot Split - Parcel 2A. The existing uses have included Intermountain Waste and Gould Construction. The proposed Minor Subdivision breaks Parcel 2A into three lots. Lot 1 will be the FedEx lot which will have an improved shared access road with the new Lot 2 which is the Waste Facility. Lot 3 was created only to differentiate between the waste facility and future development of Lot 3. Lot2 will have the ability to continue to use the south access road as well as the north improved access and road... No change in land use is proposed for the property. Therefore, the existing access will remain adequate for same continued uses on the 20 south access. To this end, it is Staff's opinion that with the representations by the Applicant's engineer satisfy the requirements for a waiver request. c. An access easement is proposed across Lot 2 which is to provide access to Lot 3. In addition, an access easement is proposed on Lot 1 for the benefit of Lot 2. As these roadways are to provide Tong -term access to these new parcels, submittal of a draft Driveway Sharing Agreement(s) which expressly identifies the maintenance responsibilities for these roadways is necessary. Once the subdivision is approved and prior to signature of the final plat, the Driveway Sharing Agreement(s) needs to be recorded. Staff recommends that submittal of the draft Driveway Sharing Agreements and subsequent recordation be a condition of approval. 30' Access Easement onto CR 154 across Lot 2 for the Benefit of Lot 3 21 Inter - Mountain Waste and Recycling Access Location from CR 154 for Lots 1 and 2 The access easements have been reviewed by the Garfield County Contract Engineer (See Exhibit 8 and 21) and the Roaring Fork School District (RFSD) (See Exhibit 14 and 24). The Roaring Fork School District owns an approximately 35 acre parcel north and west of the proposed subdivision which will require access through this site. RFSD has indicated the following: The District owns approximately 35 acres at Eastbank. Our property borders the north and west sides for the site under review. We are currently in the early stages of planning for the first of two possible schools to be located at Eastbank. We are working with Yancy Nichol (Sopris Engineering) and FHU out of Denver to evaluate access from SH82, CR154, and the ability of roads/intersections to accommodate both current and projected future land use in the vicinity, as well as safe and efficient access to the school site. As we await the results of the traffic study and engineering analysis, we are concerned that the proposed configuration of the FedEx site may limit options to address recommendations. As a result, we are requesting that a 60 -foot right of way be preserved on the east side of the FedEx site. The District is willing to work with the developer to complete a lot line adjustment 17 that would extend the lot line on the north side of the FedEx site into district property, and would add the 60 foot corridor currently on the east side of the Fed Ex site to what is now the District's parcel. As a result, the Applicant and the School District have completed a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) which provides the School District a 68 foot access corridor between proposed Lot 1 and the Rio Grande Trail. This corridor is to be used for an envisioned realigned County Road 154, should funding become available in the future. As a part of the Major Impact Review Public Hearing with the BOCC on July 20, 2015, a Condition of Approval was added to that permit which prohibits the combination of the driveway to proposed Lot 1 with any other parcel with exception to proposed Lot 2. To this end, unless CR 154 is realigned through the 68 foot corridor, the District cannot tie into the driveway for proposed Lot 1. Staff recommends adding this condition as a plat note on the Minor Subdivision. Staff understands that the School District has been working with the property owner to establish an MOU which would allow the District a larger access easement through Lot 2 should it become necessary in the future. 23 MUNK az OirelStaooe�• NOO'ON»NrMMM oa ammoac.srra•we.. sway. ago 111:1•010•11000.01010n1&,$, • 01 Lu amnTAMSL 0,� 3N1 ONIU33NION3 AULLNflOJ HOIH •I NO140 toga 11111 DaltdO7N0410I11I/INVI fq 0, uu000 3n' vruir3 CR 154 - Existing Proposed Lot 2 RFTA Trail CR 154 - Envisione RE -1 School District 30' Proposed Access Easement to RE -1 Parcel and Proposed Lot 3 of Eastbank Subdivision Proposed Lot 3 • Eastbank Subdivision — Proposed and Recommended Access Easements 24 8. Section 7-108: Natural Hazards The Application represents that there are no natural hazards on the site that would impact the proposed development. Some of the area of the subject parcel along the Roaring Fork River has been identified as having a high water table. This area of high water table is not expected to impact the development area, however. The application was reviewed by the CGS (See Exhibit 13). CGS noted the following: CGS agrees that the site does not appear to contain or be exposed to any geologic hazards that would preclude the proposed uses and density. HP's report contains a good description of subsurface conditions and soil engineering properties based on the results of 14 borings and lab testing, and makes appropriate recommendations regarding foundations, floor slabs, subsurface drainage, retaining walls, pavements, grading and surface drainage. Subsidence hazard. The property is underlain by Eagle Valley Evaporite, and numerous sinkholes and soil -collapse occurrences have been identified within several thousand feet of the site. Sinkholes, subsidence and ground deformation due to collapse of solution cavities and voids are a serious concern in the Eagle Valley Evaporite. Infrequent sinkhole formation is still an active geologic process in the Roaring Fork Valley, and ground subsidence related to the dissolution of evaporite bedrock is an unpredictable risk that should not be ignored. As a result of the subsidence in this area, Staff recommends a condition of approval that a plat note be added from the comments received from CGS. The plat note should state "The property is underlain by Eagle Valley Evaporite, and numerous sinkholes and soil - collapse occurrences have been identified within several thousand feet of the site. Sinkholes, subsidence and ground deformation due to collapse of solution cavities and voids are a serious concern in the Eagle Valley Evaporite. Infrequent sinkhole formation is still an active geologic process in the Roaring Fork Valley, and ground subsidence related to the dissolution of evaporite bedrock is an unpredictable risk." 9. Section 7-109: Fire Protection As described in Section 6, above, a 200,000 gallon water storage tank is proposed to serve the FedEx facility on Lot 1. Lots 2 and 3 fire protection water is to be served by the existing wells on the parcels. The Application was referred to the Glenwood Springs Fire Department (Exhibit 13). The Department had the following comments. 25 Because of the challenges this site presents (no municipal water supply) and uses of the proposed building (multiple vehicle and package storage for distribution) we require the design team include, at the Applicants expense a Fire Protection Engineer (SFPE). Section 104.7.2, Technical Assistance, of the 2009 International Fire Code (IFC) gives us the authority to require an SFPE be added. The function of the fire protection engineer is to determine the site and building fire flow water demands, the building's fire protection system needs like fire pump or pumps, automatic fire suppression, fire alarm, smoke evacuation and possible gas detection systems designs. The design of the automatic fire suppression system in and of itself is not a straight forward design because of the commodities the building will house. History has proven that an improperly designed privately owned and maintained remote standalone fire flow water supply system has hampered firefighting efforts resulting in complete structure losses. To this end, as a part of the Major Impact Review (MIR), the BOCC has approved a condition of approval that the Applicant consult with a Fire Protection Engineer to review the proposed facility. As this design is specific to the MIR for a Warehouse and Distribution Center (FedEx), the condition of approval is more appropriate for that Land Use Change Permit application. Article 7, Division 2: General Resource Protection Standards 10. Section 7-201 Agricultural Lands Staff understands that proposed Lot 1 is currently in agricultural production while Lot 2 is primarily light industrial and Lot 3 is vacant. The development of proposed Lot 1 would result in the loss of approximately 3 acres of agricultural land. As the balance of the property is heavily disturbed, particularly proposed Lots 2 and 3, potential agricultural production is not significant in these areas. The Applicant has also represented that agricultural land lies to the north and west of the proposed subdivision. Due to the confined nature of the proposed FedEx development, existing conditions of the Inter -Mountain and Gould facilities and that proposed Lot 3 is to remain vacant for the immediate future, no impacts to adjacent agricultural operations are anticipated. 11. Section 7-202 Wildlife Habitat Areas The Applicant submitted an Ecological Assessment conducted by Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC. The Assessment is dated February 18, 2015. The study describes the property as follows: 26 The property is dominated by a series of relatively flat terraces situated at a prominent bend in the Roaring Fork River (Figure 1) approximately 5 miles south-southwest of downtown Glenwood Springs, CO on the site of an old gravel pit. Each terrace is separated by a small, relatively steep slope that is characteristic of such river terraces in the Roaring Fork watershed (Photo 1). A dirt driveway (Photo 2) passes through the property providing access from Old Highway 82 to Parcel 2B of the Eastbank Parcel 2 Lot Split. The upper terrace (on the east side of the property) is dominated by a flood irrigated hay field on the north with commercial development and the remnants of the old gravel operation. Another dirt driveway passes through this portion of the property paralleling the river to the west of the developed area. This driveway also leads to Parcel 28 of the Lot Split (Photo 3). Outside of the hayfield and the developed areas, the vegetation is disturbed and quite sparse with large areas of bare soil. The slopes between the terraces are the most intact and the native plant communities that persist on those sites are likely remnants of the vegetation that once dominated the property — Big Sagebrush Shrubland (Photo 4). This association occurs on moderate slopes between 4,500-6,900 feet. Big sagebrush is the dominant shrub with antelope bitterbrush, mountain -mahogany, and rabbitbrush occurring as well. Grasses such as needleandthread, Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, and prairie junegrass are expected to occur within the sagebrush shrubland at this elevation but understory plants on the property are largely absent (Photo 5). Given the degree of disturbance on the site, the seral stage varies from patches of late successional versions of the big sagebrush plant community with nearly pure stands of sagebrush to larger areas where rabbitbrush is co -dominant or dominant (Photo 6). Although a thorough weed assessment has not been conducted, it is clear that there are serious weed infestations on the property. Again, this is largely due to past land uses on the property. Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium; Photo 7), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale) are among the more common Garfield County listed Noxious Weeds observed on the property. Numerous other non - natives and invasive species occur. While the study acknowledges that direct and indirect loss of habitat will occur should the development move forward, the study concludes that "Although the proposal will result in the direct Toss of vegetation and habitat, given the surroundings and indirect impacts of the existing development and the disturbed nature of the vegetation, this loss will be negligible." The Application was referred to Colorado Parks and Wildlife, however no comments were received. 27 12. Section 7-203 Protection of Waterbodies Proposed Lots 2 and 3 both have frontage on the Roaring Fork River. A 35 foot setback is required from the Typical and Ordinary High Water Mark on each side of a Waterbody. Both the current development, notably the Gould Construction facility, must adhere to this requirement. No new development is proposed within this setback. 13. Section 7-204 Drainage and Erosion The Applicant has submitted a Drainage Report conducted by High Country Engineering and dated March 1, 2015 and an updated report dated June 12, 2015. The Report states that while the whole parcel as it exists today is 38.2 acres, the examined area is the 4.187 acre proposed FedEx facility on Lot 1. The report states that "each of the three Tots will handle their own detention and storm water management." The application was referred to the Garfield County Contract Engineer who stated: The application materials only address detention for the FedEx facility. The Applicant provides a drainage study that states each lot would handle their own storm water management. Since there is no anticipated development associated with either Lot 2 or Lot 3 at this time, requiring future development to provide storm water management would be an appropriate condition. However since there is existing commercial use on Lot 2, some assurances by the Applicant that the existing uses are using BMPs to treat their existing storm water discharges seems appropriate given the proximity to the river. For the proposed FedEx facility on Lot 1, the Report states the following: The design of Eastbank Major Development was created to provide safe routing of offsite and onsite storm water through proposed lot and to the detention pond with drywell. The storm water facility design will reduce the offsite impacts from the runoff from the site by over detaining storm water from onsite as well as offsite basins. The amount of runoff that will flow downstream of the site will be reduced, thus reducing negative impacts on downstream land owners and storm water facilities. The large detention pond will also allow for storm water runoff cleansing, which will reduce pollutant transport downstream. As a result, Staff recommends a plat note which states that "Lot 2 and 3 shall develop a storm water management plan at the time of development or redevelopment". In addition, Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant address the County Engineer's concerns regarding the use of BMPs for the current uses on Lot 2. 28 14. Sections 7-205 Environmental Quality No water or air quality issues are anticipated from the proposed subdivision. See discussion in Section 13, above, related to stormwater runoff and the use of BMPs on Lot 2. 15. Section 7-206 Wildfire Hazards The subject property is identified as High, Very High and Not Rated according to Map 7, Wildland Fire Susceptibility Index of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) while County GIS 30 meter accuracy wildfire mapping show this property in a low to moderate wildfire hazard area. In addition, no slopes over 30% have been identified and no fire chimneys are known to exist on the property. To this end, as no new development is proposed within the area designated as Very High, it is Staff's opinion that the proposed development area is within a manageable wildfire hazard area. CWPP — Map 7 Wildfire Susceptibility Index 16. Section 7-207 Natural and Geologic Hazards As noted in Section 8 of this Staff Report, the natural and geologic hazards identified on the subject property are within a manageable range. 29 17. Section 7-208 Reclamation Limited disturbance is expected outside of areas which are to be used for the Tong -term functioning of the site and are proposed to take place on Lot 1. The application was referred to the Garfield County Vegetation Manager (See Exhibit 18) who stated that "Staff requests that the applicant manage the County listed noxious weeds mentioned in the Wildlife and Ecological Assessment including Scotch thistle (page 22) and Russian -Olive (page 24). Please provide treatment records to the Vegetation Management Department by October 31, 2015." Staff suggests a condition of approval that the Applicant comply with the comments from Vegetation Management. Article 7, Division 3, Site Planning and Development Standards 18. Section 7-301 Compatible Design: The proposed 3 lot subdivision and anticipated uses are generally compatible with surrounding lot sizes as well as light industrial and agricultural land uses. 19. Section 7-302 Off- Street Parking and Loading Standards: The Applicant has demonstrated through site plans that adequate off-street parking exists. Further review of the parking and loading standards will be conducted as a part of the Major Impact Review for the FedEx facility on Lot 1. 20. Sections 7-303 Landscaping Standards: The Applicant has submitted a landscaping plan for the proposed Industrial facility on Lot 1. In addition, the uses which currently exist on Lot 2 are considered Industrial. However, Industrial Uses as identified in the Use Table found in the LUDC are exempt from Section 7-303. A single family dwelling unit is proposed for Lot 3. The LUDC specifically exempts single family dwelling units from Section 7-303. 21. Section 7-304 Lighting: All exterior lighting will need to be downcast and comply with County standards. 22. Section 7-305 Snow Storage Standards: Adequate snow storage exists on the property. Further demonstration of snow storage will be addressed as a part of the Major Impact Review for the FedEx facility on Lot 1. 30 23. Section 7-306 Trail and Walkway Standards: No recreational or community facility access areas are proposed. Article 5, Division 3, Minor Subdivision Review 24. Section 5-301(C)(1): It complies with the requirements of the applicable zone district and this Code. As proposed, the subdivision complies with the Rural zone district. 25. Section 5-301(C)(2): It is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. See Section 2, above. 26. Section 5-301(C)(3): Shows satisfactory evidence of a legal, physical, adequate, and dependable water supply for each lot. See Section 4, above. 27. Section 5-301(C)(4): Satisfactory evidence of adequate and legal access has been provided. See Section 7, above. 28. Section 5-301(C)(5): Any necessary easements including, but not limited to, drainage, irrigation, utility, road, and water service have been obtained. The access road from CR 154 has been dedicated as an access easement for the benefit of Lot 2 and Lot 3 (See Section 7, above). Staff understands that the easement is to provide access to Parcel 1 of the Eastbank Lot Split (owned by RE -1 School District) as well. 29. Section 5-301(C)(6): The proposed Subdivision has the ability to provide an adequate sewage disposal system. See Section 5, above. 30. Section 5-301(C)(7): Hazards identified on the property such as, but not limited to, fire, flood, steep slopes, rockfall and poor soils, shall be mitigated, to the extent practicable. See Sections 8 and 15, above. 31 31. Section 5-301(C)(8): Information on the estimated probable construction costs and proposed method of financing for roads, water distribution systems, collection systems, storm drainage facilities and other such utilities have been provided. Construction cost estimates for the improvements to the access road to Lot 3 as well as Lots 1 and 2 have been provided. 32. Section 5-301(C)(9): All taxes applicable to the land have been paid, as certified by the County Treasurer's Office. The Applicant will need to obtain the signature of the County Treasurer on the final plat indicating that taxes have been paid. This must be accomplished prior to the BOCC signing the plat. 33. Section 5-301(C)(10): All fees, including road impact and school land dedication fees, shall be paid. Road impact fees are not applicable to this property. 34. Section 5-301(C)(11): The Final Plat meets the requirements per section 5-402.F., Final Plat. A number of amendments to the Plat are necessary for compliance with Section 5-402(F). These amendments have been outlined as conditions of approval. VII. SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends a finding that, with the recommended conditions, the proposed Minor Subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of 2030 as well as the Land Use and Development Code. Staff, therefore, recommends approval with conditions of the Eastbank, LLC Minor Subdivision application. Suggested Findings 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the Administrative Review Land Use Change Permit. 2. That with the adoption of conditions, the application is in general conformance with the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan of 2011. 3. That with the adoption of waiver from the Access and Roadways standards, the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, Section 7-107. 32 4. That with the adoption of conditions the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. Suggested Conditions of Approval Conditions Prior to Signature of the Plat 1. The Applicant has 90 days within which to satisfy conditions of approval and provide the following documentation for BOCC signature and recordation: a. A plat mylar with signed Certificates that include Dedication and Ownership, Title, Taxes, Surveyor, and any mortgagees; b. The names and addresses for the surface property owner and mineral estate shall be updated on the plat; c. Recording Fees. 2. Prior to BOCC signature on the Plat, the Applicant shall provide a valid augmentation plan and well permit for Lot 1. These documents shall be accepted by the Division of Water Resources. The accepted documents shall be reviewed by the Garfield County Community Development Department. 3. Prior to BOCC signature on the Plat, the Applicant shall provide a valid augmentation plan and well permit for Lot 3. These documents shall be accepted by the Division of Water Resources. The accepted documents shall be reviewed by the Garfield County Community Development Department. 4. Prior to BOCC signature on the Plat, the Applicant shall conduct a water quality test on the well to serve Lot 3. The results of the water quality analysis shall comply with Section 4-203(M)(1)(b)(5)(b) of the LUDC. The results of the water quality analysis shall be reviewed by the Garfield County Community Development Department and designated County Engineer. 5. Prior to BOCC signature on the Plat, the Applicant shall conduct a 4 -hour pump test on the well to serve Lot 3. The results of the pump test shall comply with Section 4- 203(M)(1)(b)(5)(a) of the LUDC. The results of the pump test shall be reviewed by the Garfield County Community Development Department and designated County Engineer. 6. Prior to BOCC signature on the Plat, the Applicant shall conduct a water quality test for coliform on Lot 2. The results shall be reviewed by the Garfield County Community Development Department and designated County Engineer. 33 7. Prior to BOCC signature on the Plat, the Applicant shall execute and record a Driveway Sharing Agreement(s) which addresses ongoing Tong -term maintenance of the access road across Lot 2 to Lot 3 and across Lot 1 to Lot 2. A draft Driveway Sharing Agreement(s) shall be submitted for initial review and comment by the County Community Development Department and Attorneys Office. The final agreed upon documents shall be recorded prior to BOCC signature on the plat. 8. Prior to BOCC signature on the Plat, the Applicant shall address the use of Stormwater Management BMPs for the existing uses on Lot 2. Should issues in stormwater drainage from the existing uses on Lot 2 be identified, the issues shall be remedied to the satisfaction of the Garfield County Contract Engineer. The analysis shall be reviewed by the Garfield County Contract Engineer and the Community Development Department. 9. Prior to the BOCC signature on the Plat, the Applicant shall add the following plat notes and make the following alterations to the plat: a. Add the following plat note: The property is underlain by Eagle Valley Evaporite, and numerous sinkholes and soil -collapse occurrences have been identified within several thousand feet of the site. Sinkholes, subsidence and ground deformation due to collapse of solution cavities and voids are a serious concern in the Eagle Valley Evaporite. Infrequent sinkhole formation is still an active geologic process in the Roaring Fork Valley, and ground subsidence related to the dissolution of evaporite bedrock is an unpredictable risk. b. Add the following plat note: The access driveway from CR 154 to Lot 1 of the Eastbank Minor Subdivision may only be combined with access to Lot 2 of the Eastbank Minor Subdivision. The access driveway from CR 154 to Lot 1 shall not be combined with the access to any other parcel or lot. c. Add the following plat note: Lot 2 and 3 shall develop a storm water management plan at the time of development or redevelopment d. Add the name and address of the surface owner of the subject parcel as required in Section 5-402(F)(1). e. Add the address of the Surveyor, Frank Harrington, as required in Section 5-402(F)(2). f. The final Mylar shall be prepared only in greyscale. 34 Other Conditions 10.AlI representations of the Applicant within the application shall be considered conditions of approval unless otherwise modified by the Director. 11. No further subdivision of these parcels is permitted by Minor Subdivision. 12.The Applicant shall treat the Scotch thistle and Russian -Olive identified on the property in the Wildlife and Ecological Assessment by October 31, 2015. The Applicant shall provide records to the Vegetation Management Department as evidence that these County listed noxious weeds have been managed. 35 EXHIBIT ��'=� Garfield County PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION Please check the appropriate boxes below based upon the notice that was conducted for your public hearing. In addition, please initial on the blank line next to the statements if they accurately reflect the described action. �U. My application required written/mailed notice to adjacent property owners and mineral owners. Mailed notice was completed on the .' day of Apr, / ,..2f1.14. -20)5 All owners of record within a 200 foot radius of the subject parcel were identified as shown in the Clerk and Recorder's office at least 15 calendar days prior to sending notice. All owners of mineral interest in the subject property were identified through records in the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other means [list] • Please attach proof of certified, return receipt requested mailed notice. 1E1 My application required Published notice. ��^dr S1,bd'.►''S'QI Notice was published on the 7f% day of r'lsy • Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram. My application required Posting of Notice. Notice was posted on the day of , 2014. Notice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adjacent road right of way generally used by the public. 1 testify that the above information is true and accurate. Name: L W1S rArrgr.- We ie.A Slop Co►1sfl1i 11C Signature:?L.; ��4A, Date: ! 1 a7A2 0 /5 1 IT9I8 OD 'N3LicV THIS OD 'N31iSt, 0000 099T 600e_ 7009 1680 0000 1748 4036 EXHIBIT 1 z TI9TS OD 'N3dSV T ENS OD *N3dSV NIVIN 3 Of All8oHinv 7009 1680 0000 1748 4272 Cj LJ 0 r•-• A I WOW nv NOLLV.1.210dSNVUI )WC T091 S OD 'SDNI8dS GOOMN '''''''''' :'`‘•••• « OLI Z8 AMH ET6t7 V N321V>1 '8 A H.1.3NN1N 'NO8VV)11/01 , istlaitsrid .44, HciT 600e. (PoPinow edaumoo aautumtu) ON AO° Iierr an.48,00) Id130311 ."11V1A1 031d111:03 • mas ielsod Sfl 109180) 'S01\1IdS 000MN319 z8 AMH 0089 3 VI8VV\1 'IRD1VDINV1A1 '8 2if A 01:1VHD111 'A3113N 4IDH 1061.116,,c1 k...c117 liupst Sd Ar61,44.1.1,4, 6 1.114.114,-,01., I fi0 Aw.1141.11'411ii,114% 111Y11/..M1 ; 11103411wmc, (PaPlAaidabasemoro eaurallung ON !irlo0 MerioloW 1d13338 `"11VIN 031A1.1.1:130 aoyuas iepod .s.n r '10918 OD 'SDN0.1dS 000MN319 oa XOU Od NOLLVIDOSSV S213NM03tAJOH HDNVII >INVaLS1M :aucraildinvourim se ausqam aso ustoi uopeumcgui /damp* • (PoPtAaad olkumoo a2u1insul ON !,(1u0 31) 1d13338 11111N 031d1.1.83 r— '0011V tWei Sd 10918 OD 'SONIddS 0OOMN31D •'•• - Lvio.#(3 KA. Z8 AMH ET617 V NRIVN '8 A H13NN3N '1\1_Clta1NV\IV1 • ..,,,EA ''Sf.etriPON PatILIV ,' : . 4.1W4.1(1 Par, ., L. ' Li lUiM u .^ibil o , . iiti tsiteu0D 1.• .7. .* (PaPlAaid efirtio.noo routunstry ON :Aro° non orizawcal 1413038 -11VIN 031d11.833 n'a3IAJaS lulsod 's.n T0918 OD 'S9NlbciS ClOOMN319 tUNflZ8 A MH 0089 3 VlbVIN 'IHD1VDSINVIN "it HI A atitrilattrx3111 •LL.,1 A V 00itt.uoi Sd at (I M.'S • 1121D4, lumvdarrNuem go Wisclem flIO 111114 ii°01"Weitil "'AIM J°4 (PoPlAaid ailitiOAO0 itoinunstil ON :A/O0 10411 Vsliodooa) 1d1333111-11VIN 031A11,833 "•a3yuas leisod's.n 109T8 OD 'SONIVdS COOMN310 OOPC .001 Sd EOLZ X09 Od . NOI1VIDOSSV S83NM031A1OH HDNVLs•-)1NVSIS3A4 airj oundp..r.ki !mule not' tuit'l0c1 147 _ /1 A • 1 luotrasisnrammi ausgemJflO4111A tiOndtwolul Amomiap JOy (OW/101d i6eJait00 a.34.16.1115111 ON !IWO iv 31iSaw00) 1d13338 1IVIN a31d11833 -‘1 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 Cr, -C w 0 0 0 C0r Ct. 0 0 0 0 w tr00Z itieruqad ' L L8C wiuj Sd IETE£ H 'IVJVIW OObb# 3AV QNZ 3S EEE Cl2iOiN3O VV2ION ROARING FORK LAND NO. 6 LLC c/ • • • gni'-33 7 ti s 0 _- o aN O 7 1D "' a �» g 5 _- N ,A m m 37 Q — 7 O m v R W 1D Q N U xF 2 w • 7 O (D roK n 3 2 n m • a3o _ On T 1EE�� •IwrIw OOVtrq 3AV ON? 3S £E f G210jN38 V ON 0/1 311 9 ON CNV1 X>j0J-91'111 08 \ 411,1:ty,; (PePlAad e8&Jeno0 eoueJnsulON!AM 11e,v 31019WOa) 1d13338 "'1111W 031311E133 a3!MaS Ieisod 'Srn. .11;41 y,at:11'.^.,j ZEtO-0S918 03 '31HIa r �, ZEV X08 Od --- 1 S3V Vf '3SO8 •...j • 4 ur �.l talk, LLt:t111. WO3Sd11n'M MM all alt$QaW lne USIA 11011rtWOljJ1 u: (PpP,Awd stkualoa &mainsail oN:dluo nor 3Asvlucia) 1d1303U IIVVJ O31dilti33 ce -u 0 0 v 2 0 0 0 z 0 D z 0 z 0 ✓ o 4'o X10 T On -'3 f 0 =M, 7 D 37 CO tb a�d�� y0o>bo a c a n 7 3 Q N Q• tD 7 a R. 7 m W © a 1 xg �" H° a0 70'$b cm • 12 •uull:rn4 uI u1 cfrtl,led los A.Jierkw P*L_ju:ur.HM:tr.I t_{� 901n tfnbnV'ooet uuoi 9d 00V17 311f1S •SV31133Wb 3H1 j0 3f1N3AV £££ a1303N39 f NVV ON 0/.) 311 'tr ON GN)P1S-0-3 ONWV011 rw,,,1tb11 purun%uyy,131 nui+o_J 1e11UJ j ptIlawe 11l dl iow3l 'fli ut11lull :oleo r'WO3Yd511•MMM:i $ !S inO MA UOil bi00 ill* AJ (PoP/AoJd moo oN 3115aw00) 1d13038 "IIVV4 O3IdI1a30 a3inJas Ie/sod •S-1 JJd 'V OCKri: So Z£VO-OS9T8 0D 31dIb ON m9 DJ . fns( .np. Nt,Fi f• ZEV X08 Od -T 3wtiCr3SQa . v .6e,sto it1o1 :ylototy 1:101U L,ou; AO,V40Cammau :to ',Nam Wt'114b •Woxeditl•anMM 11 amp* pee mem uone uao{ul Aja .p ao (PoP4A0.410411-441000000mooloNMN0111111CoQ) 1d13338 "11V1111031.111.833 C c J a 0 c c 1 0 - t 0 c c c C J II9IS OJ'N3dSV 9M 31S 3AV 1NVJ(la 3 OIL • • • o >oag 3 = (• -2-g...< AU Q .* C g a. O 3Im 3 w m0;S g m a m a o a Lo o = m o 7009 1680 0000 1748 4050 TT9IS OJ "N3dSV 4 SIHl 3137dWO3 :a3aN3 5 m 0 0 0 7009 1680 0000 ■ ■ ■ o4r8Tmg E 5 533 m - 7 f O ga'0 0) y - -•a w — N 5 3 a N Kmocimna 1748 4500 3S SAL 3137dWO0 :1:130 r T T9T8 OJ 'N3dSV 9M 31S 3AV 1NV8nd 3 OIL I,,.naiod,0 1.Sn211 319VO0A313a1 VL+O11 '80D3890VVV o/%} `IV84sd3 1 -'1 ,ua,- V u8Q{Cila IYIOL irkttiti wa iiii4pu3l 10,40Q INIP,411au iwwaclopu3l way iu1uW MUwop rtrigro 3 IPoPMWd e6ewno0 eauentsui ON Auo um 317seuropl 1d13338 " 1IVW O31dIl1133 aoinaaS Ie>)sod 'S'fl d00i kreniga j ' I. LOC X07 Sd 2 TFTEE li 'IWVIW OOtbbit 3AV GNZ 3S EU' Z 0 • v Ca C Z Ci Z rt O • 0 XI x O r D Z z 0 Cf. r T£T££ 'IVVVIW 001 7# 3AV ONE 3S £££ a Lti: iY.: 0803N39INHON Y t amu♦ �P.t.H 4,411 /V'1ir ,bJ.:.. c M'i u,••-•. 1 1 « CJI, i:lrtl' •. . 10 1.11101 1.11101 sd OP)119'0N ONV1 )12iO3 ON113V0 ..� rte• , (PoplAard a6elamo0 eousunauq ON !MO MINT O) 1dI3O3ti `" IIVW O3141w1833 a +aT� 0 3 • • • CI 4-4 15 f— LS k ° .4g Tg•P , 0 z ,..0 g o aa sa3 g 1 0 0 m esa) 33 Z 0 1 0 0 x I— 4 Tito, 6 g az-• Z Ig3:W: CO rn o r a ga:ta zr, ram n POPP ,-.-. -< 7. -OadoI 0 r- 7009 1680 0000 1748 4180 keXPIRILIIItlhoisaLgulgt.. I -1 11918 0) 'N3dSV 9 /1411Nn 3nN3AV iNvana I.SV3 CH/ NVDNr10.11:13130U '800180DVIN nuicariechmAgas sensgarJflO Inipt uommuuosui Amato* Jo 1413331:1".11VIN 031311.1133' •,,a A - 6. • 'II rs. iD 0 0 0 0 'NJ 03 O 7-1 (F*PlAaid elffeilmoo awirmsui oN *40 MI oneasucta), $ 37 5 PoOZ kignIcied ullod Sd 3 = 2 a z gl )ZIEL )IG 1,113 VINOHV1NO a31S31-02100 ZOST • III • 9,462.g2 6 org —.ag ! -• o - -acp-'37 RNElli g, 5.2 S3 • 53 a oN 53 m �I. 03 gu� mga IZSPP riaao rfc 7009 1680 0000 1748 4470 OZIEL NO 'All) VIAIOHY1>I0 JO831S31-0d00 Z'OST TIM OD `N3dSV -., ci• gff5.2A r > n Fs 0 ter Ma CI k gsg 2 =cp -,330 c 0 1 > x rt x s..: '5 5-1 g E : • 20 -I > rm rn < Du -4 Nggag-Li Z 0 gZaQP c c 7.-oa ri" Z 7009 1680 0000 1748 930 439 SIMI 31374:01/00 :1:130N3 1111 la • II9T8 OD 'N3dSV 0 m 9-M 1 INn FIN3AV iNvan 4n441„tirmtr.lird.agion. zglz POOz tusruQG ' L L86 WJOj Sd r `, 85SLVW '390I21811t13 66108E X08 Od r z Oo Z> 11- rr Z r- .n Q - D • v z C > n m D m • r'^ Z -' 7009 1680 0000 4 ig a a $� cA3 7 2214) �- Z ✓ cf�_ E • 2` D z C D z C) n m > E LA rn r" z -I —I z C VI n G 8€ WJ "30012i9Wtt3 ZOE08 03 '21301£108 66108£ X09 Od Z0E08 O3 '21301x109 7009 ]At/ 30V)SVD 9Z9 c z D 1213808 'NNVW1 3At,' 30VY VD 9Z0 ■ ■ ■ 9,; 0 z m R 7?..a A� m 7 f - 7 a m a,m 034N N W '. - ° aan'•p N T A = r7i O 1748 4326 tkMLIE/rtt•1.R.I+ll:tLi1611 _ o ag i 1680 0000 • 1 m o Yg gs. Y mi a 110101A13)IVI '8 W 4xxtl:►rrrrtrlarr.�»:t�; 33 3 8 0 3 t'00z tierucia j '1.18 S 3 11' ✓ D • • • g>81;0 za� ��_ 2 D m s .s Av o c, z a 03.5. y` m m a' o{ z r o mgima- Z of Z 3 c WN N r Vaad4 0 -< wk — z 5o"sm8 7009 1680 0000 1748 4425 5 t 10918 03 'S9N121dS 000MN319 r, n > E m z 0 G") E D i. Z8 AVMHOIH 606V D 0 Z z a0 z z m P Li 71 r k- y > O 0 O m2> Ll �° S U JC T O w G.) PI s DD n 4 Z C n n MI D EN 7009 1680 0000 31 WOK X08 Od vs3 !Hi 3.1.37d14100 a. 7 rn� cn O ow co o Dc�i' U r • m o c-% 1m � —I g • • • _ .),<3 3 za;ma-. �3 aaN cb m m n p a ° a° y g T n = a 1748 4081, tuiffimmulyyrjarmwv !N)W39VNVW M011339N01 c. POOZ AVentga j ' L L 8£ ULO j Sd 7diaDau wnioj agsawod L)ZTEL NO kL D VWO1-1v1)10 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602-0027 G, — 7* ■ ■ . m o Do ��z cc < O = m _.am i .c...•0 L y f...,'-'^ ° i c1 co H° 3:3mr "O r.. _ _ : a 2 o n- m _en 2 m -- ' O N ° w (b Z wocaaN 833 0. • r, ° games n 2 o g° a m n O r g xw � w an r/. a 3 a 7009 1680 0000 1748 4210 0 n S O D IJ U:I.L�3H)80a ZOST 7009 1680 Vt. S P c P ' 21a 831S3H)2100 ZOST ■ ■ in F n = o ✓ a 7^' AV r q C14.5;2=4 ,D ry a m w a Chi 513 aCD DJ ]-CPP n w 0000 1748 4234 0 4 t'OO Areniga j '1, L8£ 1JOd Sd ttliooaU onsawoa CODZ kainiqad ' L L8£ tJi°d Sd ti t ZOE08 OD '8301n09 A 5 ZOE03 OJ '8301n09 3AV 3avDSvD 9Z9 I C Le, z C Z Z 0 cc 7009 1680 and 3avJsvD 9Z9 v D Z S r- D Z Z 0 m O ■ ■ ■ O 3 N ° � ° B yn7 w cz m g w d3 -3a N g x D W O n N N L 5 O O 1748 4319 4 SULL 3137d141O0 :1:13aN3 D SJ f1 VIll■ MIO Pi om X33 ▪ r * Pi n NT - Ci h es `G L ' 1 rtt r' 1 Ll n , >•,1 5 ,f°TD 70 !"1 r 1,, �� cA Z O n� 'J T T 0 ?223a3 o 3 rtl 0 f"1 _ a n N v+ Z °� -t) g o L N a (�� - < • � m°3w IN'w A c n - c. O n ,,: E � a a Lai `24 Z R� cs9n Z Z 3 o 2 p P V• N G O .97 7009 1680 0000 1748 4258 r. 43S SIHI 3137dW03 :2i3QN3 1 0 n a 3 1 7009 J( V rti T T id q b Sgg. a I is Ippa n N 1 0 • is i, = Fif n z! ni Cl A V1 ' ■ • II rn g /- r 2 �i83 Z vs � m m �d�AI O C 120 a m=* c a 0 2 �, ,� o _ R m4! Z d G 67 O^ C a n ty GI 10 r- 3 ri nP. g 0 a x21QW CO 1680 0000 1748 4159 109TS 03 'SDN121dS 000MN1 VS r n 1. CI 1 m n Z 0 In x O 0 N z n 0 v n 0 D LA pa m z s z 70 6' 71 0 p 7009 1680 0000 1 e !Hi 3137dw03 :21 • C min 'T1 d ;DQ, 6 D n 33 1mn :4 I � ■ ■ ■ '98.121g O.1SO . + ,c t, m sF c�m IUH! mm_wew 'gromagc, “t@ F P 5E5= m O 1748 4197 to m z O m 0 root kmruged '1, 1.8c mod Sd 0 L ■ ■ • D��,;>o 1r2 < oHUH m O_ s ..P. < S..0A V Li,p po D1 :1 0 yog8.:- Z N Z 07 g j G N ", D -2m3.ama o -< �,oa r) co I- • q��n7 7009 1680 0000 1748 4173 43 SIHI 3137d141O0 :830N GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 51601-9522 Z8 AVMHDIH ST6t 6'H 3a f I V II • m N O x o '� m Z " ., F o m z 3 c, z m 'gc),.cyv 0 D mam-,mm Z T p O p 1 a 5'mam Jo z < o a, m ?3 o+ Z T m -gO c a N Qm_a-n to �, cy 7 a mm ma ca O O aoaoa- o sa=g -8 7009 1680 0000 1748 4203 -, 1 i F ..Pi a 2' ti g .? b 3 3 ,. D o 71- r 3 g 2 0 >� 6' .c o D o z if, C iD 7J x '� Zri G) 1 V, Vt- us n n o = 0 43S SIHi 3137d01103 :EI ON3 ti CO 0 O 0 t'ooi AJerugad ' l l8£ 11J0d Sd 8 ER 3 Q� ' l l8£ X03 sd 2 am TOOZB AM '3NN3A3H7 IONS AM'3NN3A3H_) 3f1N3AV NN00 dIHSH3NL2Vd a . it > . 5 olt. m a m? F c ',1 o • 1 Pig -N. c _a 17-a.�m.0 m co vi 1121IP 7009 1680 0000 1748 409E 3f1N3AV NNf10 [TIT dIHS213Ni8Vd 0 r z 0 0 vI z n 0 00 VST OVOa A.LN1103 S8tP 7009 1680 10918 O) 'SDNI8dS 000MN319 m ftp c m C 0000 ca 2 T Q 13 Oc min m- 9CN (D a e "FT i I .y ■ ■Rk8■ m e o E�� 3 3 j ^.c Aa n m =f c ¢m 3 - m , mm m m 2 -cam g3 a0ro $ m m m m gmaQ x o ' at, 1748 4128 1 5 1 1 iu) 0 m 33 n coon A,n,ged • l 1.8£ WJ°d Sd 3 0 W G w 2 3 3, m i 7009 9 :K E 6.1r- 0 0 0 N zi z 0 4- ✓ 0 3NV1 NVO OOZ 3NVl )IVO OOZ a 0 • • • 2 g 2 5 3 3,_ F 2 a 2 -=ate $. 0 $ Q 3 a R ro DaO'p1q 0000 1748 4111 4- r 0 0 0 Z G1 0 CA 7009 1680 0V0?•1 )INV81S3M LOOT T09T8 0) 'SOMadS 000MN31D ti 3 4- r c 0 z 0 -4m r 0000 63S S1H1 3137dW03 :1:13CIN3 • • • o Ao 0R 5a33 wm Dm . . sw m m mo_m m xdm�W 5ogg 1748 4142 4-1 r z 0 0 0 N Z G1 CiD 0 7009 1680 3AV GNVHD IZST 000a Nenigej ' L l8£ W °A Sd a 's 3 g 6. 3AV ONV8D HST 7. • • in R4811g m a � - � AU m _ hflu o 0)-(1 0 x P oaous.� r i:1309; 1748 4449 4 IH13137dW00 :H3oN3 *1 t7 14 -CO 5.a RP' C r m °m 3. D 0 i m m r0 7o oz 044". 0 �rn o w—I Z 7009 168 n 0 c D a 0 0 - 4 m z H 0 0000 a am =may 03:e 3a N ,z W 7C N o L • -s-moo 1748 4494 wpmgctflgirmag 0 o 0. OZ 2, O O T� T 172 > > 70-4 x c D coon ANn,ged ' L L8£'10A Sd b00g Aienuge3 'L L8£ W1Od Sd m 5 GI v r O Z 0 O 0 v 0 X Z G1 0 Oo 7009 1680 0000 311 N3A311 HSV1S H AZV1 TT9i8 0D "N3dSV • • • g N as 3 gym'Ag 3s*°camel =a'3g1 » aRN 80 m " nc 3 x@aQP ao(° °ak •o'm8 1748 4456 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 81602-0027 LE X09 Od TINS OD 'N3dSV Dll N3A313 H)UVNOW S STZ S IH1 3137d0V03 :830N3! • • ■ Q DN T8 2E52.32 m =•f c �1D aaE3aN N O� Cr $ - 0g3a N mm ga=g Bg w°a°W2 7009 1680 0000 1748 4043 . p. c: TOTt: H) JVNOW S SIZ • S SIH13137dWO0 :1:130N trope /Unrugoj' l8i W1OA Sd 0 3 D a 3 A CI r W:-- r G .- , rn G C z. z --.1 n. T m o I o O C w Z v Z o G.) O D z v n O vn 7009 1680 0000 3. T0918 07 'SONI2idS OOOMN319 YM = k� 0 Cr a - V rn • ■ ■ -9,C�• — ( ) O T_r� ? Da 13 O - 5-- o m $ m m yrp^m8=. L0 3 3- o mmdmm 0gir ama 3 F Z w O a y • c a z Q � 1748 4388 Cr L• l - II■ III _ < yr < m o = ^ 3 3 G D 7as m�O'O a�u om 0 Sone, D�n_,maw 73 o _ Z NZ m 3 m m "cory 2 •g w 7a n n o j y N9aoyk oo C T O= cc*O 7009 1680 0000 1748 4418 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-9622 Z8 AVMHOIH ST6r OOZ tieruga j' l L 8E W lO j Sd 7009 la 10918 OJ "SONIiidS OOOMN310 rSi OV021 AINnOJ S8ir r Z O O v z z G1 y, 0 m 1680 0000 e 411 al VST OV02i Al NnOJ S8Tr )T1 S,3)1188 8 3NVHS 90 CD r- n Cr 0 z 0 o v C Z Gl 0 0' C` 7009 1680 X 0 z n 90 O 0000 a a SIH. 3137d1100 :2i30N3 • • • o4ovob' w = ^ 3 CD 7 C m 70 0 L'i' m n;N E.S 3 3 m N 13 9staaON m m ca 3gma4a 3(]2 J � ff. a a of o?m6 1748 4432 4 SIH13 MOO 1:130 37 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 0027 0 >( O J a z n --f 20 0 c yr Z a a O 2 z 0 w 0, 1 119T8 OJ 'N3dSV TOT#1 HJNVNOW S STZ r = ■ ■ ■ Z rnO D8 Z 61i 3. j a r, m m �7*.cov ng =....-0=6 _ rn a it m x,6 at 7J o mG3 Dg.., < .105-5,1 0 a ' N r ° ° ca � ✓ Q 5 n D , DC<g a n x P __ N°ao`^1 7009 1680 0000 1748 4289 1O14 HJiUVNOW S STZ 7009 r Z 0 0O v 00 Z n 0 00 3NV1 NVO OOZ V A21VVJ J )12iVW 'U1fl 1 f 13137dWOO:83QN3 ■ ■ ■ o DnAsn � a�o 4 g 20g�3 s Dyoc Dau, au, a N m3 D m as-a=g igruo n2 W x y°aoy� sa='8 1748 4357 .3S SIH13137d1NO3 :1:13QN3 b00z tiaN4a3 , l L8£ uu03 Sd TOOZ8 AM '3NN3A3 O Z S3 3 • n ofiKi " D n�A 0 m 2 7 O CO . O W g g.33D oam 2 P m O 3 3 N 22.0 Re m 0 D 7 a -i p tb 3 - m g� V -W N O Q -1`r n O ti 7009 1680 0000 1748 4333 4 Hl 3137dWO31:130N3 TOOZS AM '3NN3A3HJ 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 025 5 -02 -M -*5c0 , PS Form 3811, February 2004 3 ti 3f1N3AV NNfO ITU r 1-11 z 0 O 1 1 a 5 Inc m .ocn a. :D Edd vw >5. F m �n o v, • ■ in m Dgff3:-'-33 20 n 57 mO A9 IS D �f : �mm mECI �„ V D - < C j 3 3 „ m ' a g m s m rn -. a o 5 s a N 55 a w =0 . sa=ma 7009 1680 0000 1748 4364 ■1 It dn. .1 1:1 PSI OV08 ALNl0J S8TV • L a 111 .� 1• -4 C) +,c.r_ rnriz (2 -4 -{ 11 0"0 S }• 1+n+U• 0(7111 1 t b RI :D 13 0 V9I`3 UJ 'SONI8dS GOOMN31O r+ EOL? XOB Od NOIIVOOSSV 81602 WESTBANK RANCH HOMEOWNERS O O 0' m C3 0 C3 0 0 03 L✓ w Ln U.S. POSTAGE PAID GLENWOOD SPRING,CO 81601 APR 27, 15 AMOUNT $6.49 00101131-21 1 , 031111: r ne co tiij 4 j.11 �i.l Ell • 111 n • 01 _JNIadS QOOMN3l9 100 J0:15 319 s'n EOLZ XO8 Od NOLLVI)OSSV WESTBANK RANCH HOMEOWNERS L0918 1111111111111110 ft. rr , -t trlr- e r r rl R' ,tr n _ ,•, -1 ZEVO-OS91.8 00 '31318 0 0 x L• N S31A1V1 '3508 d 81650 Irri U.S. POSTAGE PAID GLEN1W01OD SPRING,CO 8APR 27, 15 AMOUNT $6.49 00101131-21 r' 11M1 031 I1 !i ZEVO-0S9I8 OD "3131Li 0 Q 0 x N 81050 1 S3WVf '3508 U.S. POSTAGE PAID GLENWOOD SPRING,CO 81601 APR 27, 15 AMOUNT t $6.49 00101131-21 David Pesnichak From: Michael Prehm Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 3:39 PM To: David Pesnichak Cc: Rayjean Kramer Subject: Major Impact Review Fed -Ex David, EXHIBIT Thank you for the opportunity to review this application. This facility does access onto County Road 154 directly. There are several things to the West of the proposed driveway that are important to this project. The RAFTA Trail, the Glenwood Ditch, and County Road 154 being fairly steep leading up to the Traffic light, with a curve at the top. At peak traffic volumes traffic could be backed up across the RAFTA Trail. To the East, there is a grade change on County Road 154, steeper drop off for driveway access. In reviewing the Traffic volumes, Turning Templates, and the uncertainly of future development, I would propose the driveway stay were proposed. A Driveway Permit would need to be obtained from Road & Bridge. If you have any questions please let me know. Thanks Mike Prehm Garfield County Road & Bridge Foreman / Glenwood District (970) 945-1223 Office (970) 945-1318 Fax. (970) 618-7109 Cell 1 May 19, 2015 Mr. David Pesnichak Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 MOUNTIAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design RE: Review of Minor Subdivision & Major Impact Applications: MISA 8259 & MIPA 8260 Dear David: EXHIBIT This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the Minor Subdivision Application and the Major Impact Application for Eastbank LLC and Federal Express. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The review generated the following comments: Comments specific to the Minor Subdivision application, MISA-8259: 1. The water quality reports for the existing and the new wells did not have results for coliform. The Applicant should provide these result. 2. The proposed Lot 3 well has not been constructed or tested. The Applicant should provide results of the pump and water quality tests. 3. The Traffic Study that was provided addresses the impacts from the Federal Express facility. Traffic from the proposed single-family house was not included. The Applicant should address if the increased traffic from this additional use would adversely change the results of the Traffic Study. 4. The application materials only address detention for the FedEx facility. The Applicant should discuss what is proposed for detention for the other Lots of the proposed subdivision. 5. The existing driveway access for Lot 2 is proposed to be used for Lot 3. This access does not meet County standards and has grades of 13.28% at the intersection. The Applicant should provide alternative design to comply with County Road Standards. 6. There appears to be existing irrigation ditches on site. The Applicant should address what is to be done with these ditches and the irrigation water. Comments specific to the Major Impact application, MIPA-8260: 7. The Applicant will need to provide a Driveway permit from Garfield County. 8. The proposed FedEx driveway intersection with CR154 is listed as 7.91%. Garfield County driveway permits required 3% for 30'. The Applicant should revise the design to comply with County standards. 9. The grates for some of the area inlets are below the proposed weir spillway elevation. This will create a situation where the piping and inlets will surcharge and create areas of ponding within the proposed site. The Applicant should verify the detention pond elevations with the proposed inlet elevations and revise as necessary. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com Eastbank, LLC Page 2 of 2 May, 2015 10. The RFSD site is proposed to access CR154 somewhere between the existing Lot 2/Lot 3 access and the proposed FedEx Access. It is understood that some negotiations have already begun for providing an easement for this access. The Traffic Study for this application shows only small impacts to the existing road queueing and levels of service from the Fed Ex facility. This is likely not the case with a third access for a large traffic generator, such as a proposed school. Provisions should be made to allow the proposed access to be combined to a future access to the south that would likely provide better sight distance, allow more room for turn lanes, and provide longer queue lengths. Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mount • Cross Enginee ing,nc. Hale, PE Mountain Cross Engineering. Inc. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826 1/2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com May 19, 2015 COLORADO Division of Water Resources a ::.r•u,,,.., :, .•: is , .d 1313 Sherman Street. Room 821 Denver, CO 80203 David Pesnichak Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8n Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 84601 Re: Eastbank Minor Subdivision Section 35, T6S, R89W, 6th PM Water Division 5, Water District 38 Dear Mr. Pesnichak: We have reviewed the above -referenced plan to subdivide a parcel of approximately 38+/ - acres into three lots. Lot 1 would be approximately 3.6 acres; Lot 2 would be approximately 17,6 acres and Lot 3 would be approximately 16.9 acres. The properties current address is 3925 County Road 154 in Glenwood Springs. The applicant indicates that they intend on providing water to all three Tots through individual on -lot wells. The parcel currently has two existing wells that are intended to be utilized in the proposed subdivision. The applicant intends to treat wastewater through individual on-site septic systems for each lot. The information provided indicates that water use on each lot will include commercial, domestic, and landscape irrigation with no mention of animal watering. The first well, which would be located on Lot 1, has Permit No. 296873. The permit was issued on February 12, 2015 pursuant to CRS 37-90-602(3)(b)(I) for uses as described in CRS 37-92-602(1)(f). The wells use is limited to monitoring water levels and/or water quality sampling. No other use of this well is permitted without a new permit from this office. The second well, which would be located on Lot 2, has Permit No. 50236-F. The permit was issued for an existing well on July 8, 1998 pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2). Use of the water from the well is limited to drinking and sanitary purposes inside a 4,000 square foot office/repair shop building, occasional truck washing and floor washing, and not more than 1,000 square feet of landscaping irrigation. The well shall be operated only when a Basalt Water Conservancy District water allotment contract between the well owner and the district is in effect (BWCD contract #312). Section 37-92-602(3)(b)(III), C.R.S., requires that the cumulative effect of all wells in a subdivision be considered when evaluating material injury to decreed water rights. The source of the proposed water supply would be from, or tributary to, the Colorado River. This area of the Colorado River is over -appropriated; therefore, an augmentation plan is required to offset depletions caused by the pumping of any wells. The applicant has indicated that they intend to 1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, C080203 P 303.866.3581 F 303.866.2223 www.watcr.state.co.us " lh7h " David Pesnichak May 19, 2015 Eastbank Minor Subdivision Page utilize both existing wells in the new subdivision along with a proposed third well Therefore. a new well permit issued pursuant to a decreed plan for augmentation will be required for the proposed well and the well with Permit No. 296873. If the applicant intends to expand the use of Permit No. 50236-F beyond those uses currently permitted, a new well permit issued pursuant to a plan for augmentation will be required as well. A 4 -hour pump test was conducted for both wells by Resource Engineering and Ray's Well Done Pump Service on March 3, 2015. The well with Permit No. 296873 was shown to produce 10 gallons per minute and the well with Permit No. 50236-F produced 20 gallons per minute. The uses on Lot 1 are estimated to average a daily demand of 0.75 gpm over the course of the year. The water supplies should be physically adequate to supply water to each lot. Please note that the long term adequacy of any ground water source may be subject to fluctuation due to hydrological and climatic trends. Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply can be provided without causing material injury to decreed water rights so long as the applicant obtains (or maintains) well permits issued pursuant to C.R.S. 37-90- 137(2) and the plan for augmentation operated by Basalt Water Conservancy District, for all wells in the subdivision and operates the wells in accordance with the terms and conditions of any future well permits. Provided the sustained well yield of each of the proposed wells is similar to Permit No. 296873 and 50236-F, the proposed water supply is expected to be physically adequate. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Ivan Franco in this office for assistance. HIF: Eastbank Minor Subdivision.docx cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer Water Commissioner, District 38 1313 S1,erman Street. Room 821. Denvci. CO 80203 Sincerely, • tvk Megan Sullivan, P.E. Water Resource Engineer P 303.866.3581 F 303.866.2223 www.wate, state.caus ,, "4,, • r• David Pesnichak From: Roussin - CDOT, Daniel <daniel.roussin@state.co.us> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 11:55 AM To: Tamra Allen; David Pesnichak Subject: Fwd: Referral Application: MISA-8259 - Minor Subdivision-Eastbank, LLC Attachments: MISA-8259 - Cover Page.pdf; MISA-8259 - Referral Request Form.pdf EXHIBIT /0 I have no comments on the subdivision. thanks Dan Roussin Permit Unit Manager Traffic and Safety P 970.683.6284 1 F 970.683.6290 222 South 6th Street, Room 100, Grand Junction, CO 81501 daniel roussin@state.co.us 1 www.coloradodot.info 1 www.cotrip.org 'Fq Forwarded message From: Lindsay Krol <lkrol@garfield-county.com> Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:02 PM Subject: Referral Application: MISA-8259 - Minor Subdivision-Eastbank, LLC To: Michael Prelim <mprehm@garfeld-county.com>, Kelly Cave <kcave a,garfield-county.com>, "jsears a,garcosheriff com" <jsearsngarcosheriff.com>, Steve Anthony <santhonyagarfield-county.com>, Morgan Hill <mhill a,garfield-county.com>, "chrismountaincross-eng.com" <chris@,mountaincross- eng.com>, Chris Bornholdt <cbornholdt(�garcosheriff.com>, "Megan.sullivan@a,state.co.us" <Megan.sullivanAstate.co.us>, "kaberryCa,mines.edu" <kaberry c@i,mines.edu>, "daniel.roussin@u,state.co.us" <daniel.roussin@state.co.us>, "bret.icenogle(a,state.co.us" <bret.icenogleastate.co.us>, "scott.hoyerastate.co.us" <scott.hoyer@state.co.us>, "rbiggers@ci.glenwood-springs.co.us" <rbiggers@ci.glenwood-springs.co.us>, "svelland@rfschools.com" <spelland ciirfschools.com>, "jwhite@rfta.com" <jwhite(a�rfta.com>, "ibucka,carbondaleco.net" <ibuck@carbondaleco.net>, "andrew.mcgregorcogs.us" <andrew.mcgregora;cogs.us> Cc: David Pesnichak <dpesnichakagarfield-county.com> Hello, f The Garfield County Community Development Department has received an application for a land use change permit for the MISA-8259 - Minor Subdivision-Eastbank, LLC. Attached, are the Referral Form and June 25, 2013 Garfield Coun Balcomb and Green P.C. c/o Chad J. Lee and Thomas J. Hartert P.O. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 DELIVERED VIA EMAIL and USPS RE: Inter -Mountain Operations on Eastbank LLC Property (Parcel # 2185-353-04-001) EXHIBIT Dear Mr. Lee and Mr. Hartert: County Staff has reviewed the documentation provided in your April 11, 2013 letter addressing current and historical uses on the Eastbank LLC property. Based on that correspondence as well as the file documents for the Special Use Permit issued to Joe Jammaron, located in the Community Development Department, the County believes the existing Inter -Mountain operation, as defined below, is a legal nonconforming use on the Eastbank LLC property. The documents that support this determination are Resolution 97-92, and correspondence between Planning Director Mark Bean and Joe Jammaron (Exhibits A-E). The intent of this letter is threefold: (1) to memorialize the history of the uses on this property; (2) to point out how changes to the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended ("ULUR") affect what is considered to be a legal nonconforming use; and (3) to clearly identify those uses that will be allowed to continue as legal nonconforming uses. Late 1960s -1970s. According to documents in the above referenced file, in the late 1960 and early 1970s this site was owned by Joe and Geraldine Jammaron. The site contained a mineral (gravel/concrete) extraction operation which included a concrete batch plant with numerous cement mixers, cement transports, gravel hauling equipment, concrete pumping units and support vehicles on the property. During this same time period, the property also had on-site facilities that were used for vehicle and equipment repairs related to the mineral extraction operation. The presence of a repair shop and vehicle storage was documented in correspondence between the County Planning Department, Mr. Jammaron and K. R. Weatherly, manager of the mineral extraction operation. These historical commercial uses and operations on the property were in existence prior to the County enacting land use regulations and therefore were legal uses at the time. 1994-1997. In letters from Planning Director Mark Bean, the County acknowledged certain legal nonconforming uses on this property as being "an equal or lesser degree of non -conformity that the previous use." In addition, Condition #5 in Resolution 97-92 (Exhibit A) issued for the Contractor Yard on this parcel, refers to those nonconforming uses agreed to by the County Planning Department and the property owner, Joe Jammaron. In 1997, a Special Use Permit was issued to Joe and Geraldine Rae Jammaron and Mark Gould to allow storage of construction related vehicles on a portion of the subject property. The Page 1 of 3 remaining portion of the property was recognized as legally nonconforming. The entire property was zoned A/I, Agricultural/Industrial at that time. August 5, 2005. As described in a letter dated August 5, 2005, from the Balcomb and Green law firm (Exhibit F) there was a meeting between representatives of the firm and the County's planning department that resulted in a mutual agreement that Rocky Mountain Disposal's operations, that were on-site at this time, were substantially similar to and less intense than historical uses of the property which therefore classified the Rocky Mountain Disposal (RMD) operation as a legal nonconforming use. As part of this document, a limit was placed on the operation to permit no more than thirty (30) commercial vehicles and those uses attendant to the operations of RMD. As described in an April 1 1, 2013 letter from Chad Lee of Balcomb and Green, the operations under the current lease holder, Inter -Mountain Waste (1MW) and Recycling, are substantially similar to those associated to the RMD operation. In fact, the letter stated that IMW current operations are less intense than the previous leaseholder because IMW has fewer loaded containers on-site and no longer allows public drop off of recyclable materials. The County supports this finding. October 13, 2008. Prior to the County's adoption on October 13, 2008, the County's land use code allowed for non- conforming uses to be changed so long as the change in use was "an equal or lesser degree of non- conformity" than the previous use. Upon the adoption of the ULUR in 2008, however, the requirements for legal nonconforming uses changed. Sections 10-102 and 10-103 of the 2008 ULUR state that a non -conforming use may be continued and normal or routine maintenance of the structure containing a nonconforming use shall be permitted so long as the use is not enlarged, expanded, extended or altered as defined in Article 10 (Exhibit G). Present. Given the historical use of the Eastbank LLC property, (f.k.a. Jammaron property or a.k.a. Western Mobile site), the County's previous recognition of the uses on-site as legal non -conforming and the use being substantially similar but less intense in use than those prior to 2005, Garfield County recognizes an 3.9 acres site (as shown in the Exhibit H) to contain the following legal non -conforming uses: • Overnight storage of covered waste containers staged for transport to local landfills the next day. • "Transloading" recyclable materials (transfer of recyclable commodities) from one container to a larger container and staged for shipment to a recycling/processing facility. • Storage of no more than thirty (30) commercial vehicles associated with Inter -Mountain's operations. • Outside storage of containers and equipment associated with Inter -Mountain's Operations is limited to 100 commercial dumpsters, roll off, compactor or recycle container units and 100 residential trash or recycle containers. • There will be nb waste (putrescible materials) stored or transloaded at this site. • There will be no public access for disposal of recyclable commodities and trash or processing of recyclable materials. • Storage of recreational vehicles (including boats, travel trailers) or temporary structures used as living quarters are not permitted. • Any uses or storage of items not listed will not be permitted. Page 2 of 3 Current and future uses shall be contained within the area designated on the site map as shown in Exhibit H. Any change in use will be subject to the land use code in effect at the time of the change and may require a Land Use Change Permit. Pursuant to Section 10-106.A.I of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended, any legal nonconforming use that is discontinued for a period of six (6) months or more as a result of causes within the control of the property owner or their agent shall be interpreted as abandonment of the use and will immediately terminate the right to continue these nonconforming uses. Expansion, enlargement or change in uses will also terminate the right to continue the nonconforming uses. Failure by the County to provide notification of a determination of abandonment or termination shall in no way entitle the property owner to continue or resume a nonconforming use determined to be abandoned or terminated under provisions of the adopted land use code. R s,� ectfully, Gale D. Carmoney Code Enforcement Of cc: Fred Jarman, Community Development Director (email) Andy Schwaller, Building Official (email) Carey Gagnon, Assistant County Attorney (email) Robert Macgregor, Dunrene Group ftle:T:\Code Enforcement\Complaints-Site Visits\20l3\Eastbank LLC 3927 CR 154\6-25-13 final ltr RE Eastbank non -conforming status.docx Exhibits: A.) Resolution 97-92 B.) November 2, 1994 letter from Mark Bean to Joe Jammaron C.) November 21, 1994 letter from Joe Jammaron to Mark Bean D.) November 15, 1994 letter from K. R. Weatherly to Joe Jammaron E.) December 1, 1994 letter from Mark Bean to Joe Jammaron F.) August 5, 2005 Letter from Balcomb and Green to Mark Bean G.) Article 10 of 2008 Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 as amended H.) Site Map Page 3 of 3 STATE OF COLORADO ) )51 County of Garfield 11111111111, 1111111lI�I II111111 mill II111111111 101 �36J 5147U i0/07/1t167 63i21F 630'37 P311 447 of J R 0.00 D 0.00 H 0.ee GARFIELD CLERK At a _ regular hearing of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs on Monday , the 6th of October A.D. 19 97 , there were present: Marian I. Smith , Commissioner Chairman John Martin , Commissioner Lam McCown , Commissioner Don DeFord , County Attorney Mildred Alsdoff , Clerk of the Board Chuck Dhie , County Administrator when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO 97-42 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR JOE & GERALDINE RAE JAMMARON AND MARK GOULD WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, has received application from Joe and Geraldine Rae Jammaron and Mark Gould to allow for the storage of construction related vehicles on the following described tract of land: See Attached: Exhibit A (in the State of Colorado and the County of Garfield); and WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on the 2nd day of June, 1997, upon the question of whether the above-described Special Use Permit should be granted or denied, at which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the issuance of said Special Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the Board on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determination of fact: 1. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. EXHIBIT 1 111111 11111 11111111111111111111 1111111 NI 11111 1111 1111 514788 10/87/1997 23:28P 01037 P3t12 447 2 of 3 R 0.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 CRRFIELD CLERK 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facto, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing. 3. That asamended the pplication is in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, 4. For the above stated and other reasons, the proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, meals, oonvenieroe,.order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield Cnunty.. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that the Special Use Pemut be and hereby is authorized permitting the use of the above described tract of land for the storage of construction related vehicles, upon the following specific conditions: 1. That all proposals of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval unless stated otherwise by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the applicant be required to participate on a proportionate impact basis in the improvement of the State I-ilghway 82/CR 154 intersection, if the County establishes an improvement program during the term of any lease on the associated property that is not tied to a nonconforming use. 3. That all vehicles accessing Highway 82 from the site will only use the CR 154/Hwy. 82 intersection north of the site, except for vehicular safety purposes. Generally, vehicles will use the CR 1541CR 114/Hwy 82 intersection for access to the site, except for safety purposes due to the length of the vehicles. 4. That any office structures meet the 1994 Uniform Building Code requirements for the type of occupancy proposed. 5. That the Commercial Part Special Use Permit is approved only for the storage of heavy equipment and nonconforming uses agreed to in letters to Joe Jammaron dated November 2, 1994 and December 1, 1994, from the Garfield County Planning Department. Any modification to the COnunercialPitrk designation, will require the modiffcatibn of the Special Use Permit, through the applicable process in existence at the time of any proposed modification. 1VilliHillIIII1I HiIIII,ILIIllll1l.11l111IIII[1 53478E 18/07/1497 e3:28P 01.037 P383 447 3 of 3 R 0.0® D 0.00 N a.0a GARFIELD CLERX Datedthis 7th dayof October A.D.19 97 . ATTEST: Cle of the Board GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF C0MMISSI0NERS, GARFIELD C0UN3"Y, COLORADO 127 T/ Chairman Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adapted by the following vote COMMISSIONER CHAIRMAN MARIAN I. SMITH COMMISSIONER JCNN F. MARTA{ COMMISSIOER LARRY L. MCCOWN EXHIBIT 'A• Ali Grantor°a interest in Lot 23, all that part of Lots 7, 6. 22, 26 and 29 Easterly and Northerly of the Roaring Fork River, all that part of Lot 16 Southerly of the Southerly right-of-way line of Colorado State Highway 92, and all that part of Lots 24 and 25 Southerly and Westerly of the Southwesterly right-of-way line of said Colorado State Highway 82, all In Section 35, Township 6 South, Range 09 West of the 6th P.14., EXCEPT for any part of the above- described lands within the right-of-way of said Highway 62; Together with all water rights used upon, or in connec- tion with any of said lands above-described and particularly 65 shares of the capital stock of the Glenwood Irrigation Company and the at and ditch righta evidenced thereby; and Including Grantor's interest In and to all oil, gas, sand, gravel and all other minerals and mineral righta on all of the above-described lands. A parcel of lend situated In Lost 27, Section 35, Herr h1p 6 South, Range 19 West of the Sixth Principal County of Garfield, State of Colorado; said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast Corner of ssid Lot 27, a rcbar and cap in place; thence S. 96.20'06' W. along the North line of said Lot 27, 261,03 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence leeving said North lire S. 25'29'00' W 197,63feet to a point on the centerline of the Roaring York River; thence N. 75'34°12. N. along said centerline 242.78 feet; thence N. 62'09'22' W. along said centerline 237,65 feet; thence leaving said centerline N. OD'00'0o' W. 43.07 feet to a point on the North line of said lot 27; thence N. 86'20'06" G. along said North iine_569:1:', feet to the True Point of Beginning; contai g 1,24 acres more or less; Subject to easements,ditions of leave and 11ens encumbrances. ecord,terns her con- ditions Grantor, of record, and se.e torr with Grantor's rights and obligations under lasses for gravel and other minerals and business uses of portions of the property conveyed herein, AYE AYE AYE 40 4111 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANNING November 2, 1994 Joe Jammaron P.O.Box 163€ Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Dear Mr, Jammaron: After reviewing your October 28, 1994 letter with the County Attorney, we both agree that the proposed "truck repair and maintenance* facility with offices could be considered a use that "exhibits an equal or lesser degree of nonconformity" than the previous nonconforming use. Our determination is based on some limitations your future renter needs to consider before renting the property. Western Mobile's business offices and repair facility had a limited amount of outside storage of vehicles. As a repair facility, we assume that there will be a need to store vehicles that the company is repairing. Based on my memory, there did not ever appear to be more than ten (10) trucks parked outside of the facility. Unless someone can demonstrate that there were more than then (10) vehicles stored on the property, that number will be used as a maximum for the proposed new use. Additionally, your new client will need to he sure that all lighting is directed into the property and that sounds do not emanate beyond the property boundary. As you are aware, the Westbank homeowners had some problems with the Western Mobile operation, until they started operating under similar parameters. 1f your new client can operate within these parameters, we feel that they would be within the provisions for a change in a nonconforming use. l f you have any questions, please feel free to call or write to this office. Mark. L. Bean, Director Building and Planning M LBJsa 11198TH STREET, SUITE 303 • 01541212I625-5571/285.7972 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, Joe Jammaron PO Box 1631 .., .. • _ ..,...� ,r. Glenwood Springs, CO 816 21 November. 1994 twin *ID kyr Mark Bean Dir. Garfield Co Building & Planning l O9 Oth' St . Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 Dear Mr. dears After reading your letter of 2 Nov., 199% I felt that estimate of ten (18) trucks bear extremely low. parked at 3987 154 Road to be I wrote a letter to l;.R. Weatherly, Western Mobile's Vice President and area manager (copy enclosed) asking for information on their operation. Ars you can see by his response (copy enclosed), they at times had around eighty trucks there. I do not feral that any new business would need this aeount and would like to suggest a maximum of thirty (30) vehicles be allowed. fh"&nl: you tc,r your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, ��� Western � Mobile • Joe Jaznmaron P.O. Box 1631 Glenwood Springs, CO, 81602 Dear Mr. Jammaron; • November 15, 1994 11671rVet 40 Glenwood So91. Colpr3ito 8k f $i 303-9451462 10 response to your request for information on the rumbe.r of tricks aid other equipment that we stored at 3927 County Road 154,1 hope the follosying information will be of help. During the 1970s and 1980s we had a total of 50 mixer trucks, 18 cement transports, 8 gravel hauling units, 6 concrete pumping units and numerous support vehicles. Normally during the winter months most of these vehicles were parked at this location. During the summer months they would be in and out and moved to other company locations as needed. During the 1990s we have reduced our fleet by approximately 20 percent. if you need any more information please do not hesitate to call. KRW/jb Respectfully, 1 K.12. Weatherly Arca Manager Western MObite is an Equal Opportunity Employer EXHIBIT GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANNING December 1, 1994 Joe Jarnmaron PO Box 163;1 Glenwood Spring;, CO 81602 Deur Mr. Jammaron: Based on your 11/21/94 letter and the attached ketter from K.R. Weatherly, Western Mobile, 1 concurr that u maximum of thirty (30) vehicle`: stored outside of the main building is a reasonable limit for a nonconforming use on your property, This does not prevent someone from requesting a rezoning or landuse permit, that may allow for an increase in this maximum, If you have any further questions about this issue, feel free to call or write to this office. Mark L. Bean, Diretlor Building and Planning Department M LB/rnb 1098TH STREET, SUITE 303 94S-82121625-55711285-7972 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. EXHIBIT EDWARD MULHALL, JR. SCOTT BALCOMB LAWRENCE R. GREEN TIMOTHY A. THULSON DAVID C HALLFORO CrlRisTOPHER L. COYLE THOMAS 4, HARTERT CMRfSTOPHER L. GEIGER ANNE. t+IARIE MCPHEE SARA M, DuNN DANIEL C. WENNOOLE BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. DRAWER 790 818 COLORADO AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 TELEPHONE: 970.945.0546 FACSIMILE: 970.945.8902 www,ba lcornbgreen,co m August 5, 2005 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mark Bean Director of Community Development Garfield County 108 Eighth Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado OF 'COUNSEL: KENNETH BALCOMB JOHN A. THULSON SPECIAL COUNSEL: WALTER 0. LOwRY RE: Eastbank, LLC/Cozy Point, LP (a/k/a "jaminaron Parcel") — Special Use Permit Issues, Meeting, Understandings and Confirmation (Rocky Mountain Disposal/Ryder-Budget) Dear Mark: This letter shall describe and confirm, based on our discussions of last week, our respective mutual understandings of the status and required actions with respect to the above -referenced parcel. Let me begin by expressing my client's appreciation of the Planning Department's cooperation with these matters; in particular, the willingness of you, Steve Hackett and Ron Van Meter to spend time to cooperate with the property owner and resolve issues. Rocky Mountain Disposal ("RMD") has, since assuming the leasehold interest in the historically "commercial" upper area adjacent to County Road 154 from the prior tenant, Hanson Equipment (1) had the APS portable toilets user removed from the site, and (ii) substantially improved the overall function and appearance of the site. As we agreed at our recent meeting after a review of the site's background, file, correspondence and Special Use Permit, RMD's current use is substantially similar to the historical non -conforming uses at the property and, therefore, will not require additional processes. A maximum of thirty (30) commercial vehicles and uses attendant to the operations of RMD will be maintained. BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW PAox 2 However, the sub -let tenant user, Ryder -Budget Rentals, has been determined to exceed the parameters of the permissible uses. I have made multiple inquiries of my client, prior tenants, RMD and others in an attempt to understand how and when Ryder -Budget came to operate at this location. Apparently, Hanson Equipment agreed in December 2002 to such a sub -let. An initial "term" (although I am unable to locate any legitimate sub -lease agreement) of six months was established, with a "...90 day written notice to terminate...". My client has no privity of contract with Ryder -Budget. Any claim of sub -let inherently is a claim through and under the primary lease which was Hanson's and now belongs to RMD. The RMD lease provides that subsequent zoning determinations are a basis for leasehold termination. I have attempted to contact Ryder -Budget with notice to vacate the premises. It appears I will need to serve such notice physically at the site to be certain we have commenced appropriate ejectment processes. I will complete this no later than next week, if that is acceptable to you. At a minimum, I will demand that Ryder -Budget cease its "leasing" activities at the site within the next 30 days. In the event Ryder -Budget is unable to entirely relocate its equipment and materials within that same time frame, I will keep your office (or Mr. Van Meter, if you prefer) apprised as to exactly when the user has vacated. Please contact me with any questions or concerns regarding the foregoing. In the event I have not clearly confirmed the status and understandings discussed herein, I request that you inform me at your earliest convenience. TJH:skl Pc: Robert Macgregor Mike. Maple Ron Van Meter (Garfield County Zoning Compliance) Rocky Mountain Disposal (ATTN: David Sanders) Very truly yours, BALCOMB & GRE N By: If Thom, . J. Hartert Atto ey for Eastbank, LLC and Property Manager for Dunrene Management, Inc. ARTICLE X NONCONFORMING LAND U S E TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 10-101 APPLICABILITY, ... 1 SECTION 10-102 CONTINUATION OF NONCONFORMING LAND USE 1 A. Nonconforming Structure. 1 B. Nonconforming Use. 1 SECTION 10-103 ENLARGEMENT OR ALTERATION OF A NONCONFORMING LAND USE 1 A. Enlargement or Alteration of Nonconforming Land Use Prohibited. ........ ....... 1 B. Permissible Alterations of Nonconforming Land Use 2 SECTION 10-104 CHANGE OF A NONCONFORMING LAND USE. 3 SECTION 10-105 DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURE CONTAINING A NONCONFORMING USE 3 A. Structure Deemed Destroyed.... 3 B. Structure Intentionally Damaged or Destroyed. 3 C. Permit Review Required. 3 D. Restoration of Structure. 3 SECTION 10-106 ABANDONMENT OF A NONCONFORMING LAND USE.. 4 A. Determination of Abandonment. 4 SECTION 10-107 NOTICE OF TERMINATION AND RIGHT TO BRING ENFORCEMENT ACTION 4 A. Written Notification. 4 B. Right to Bring Enforcement Action. 5 GARFIELD COUNTY UNIFIED LAND USE RESOLUTION OF 2008, AS AMENDED i 10-1 (This Page Left Blank Intentionally) GARFIELD COUNTY UNIFIED LAND USE RESOLUTION OF 2008, AS AMENDED 10 -II ARTICLE X NONCONFORMING LAND USE 10-101 APPLICABILITY SECTION 10-101 APPLICABILITY, The regulatory provisions of this Article shall apply to all permitted land use, including divisions of land and signs, that do not conform to the applicable use regulations of this Gode as a result of either the adoption or amendment of this Code, or a final administrative or judicial decision precluding the County from enforcing this Code specific to a use on the basis of estoppels, laches, or waiver. SECTION 10-102 CONTINUATION OF NONCONFORMING LAND USE. A nonconforming land use may be continued, and normal or routine maintenance shall be permitted, in compliance with the regulatory provisions of this Article. A. Nonconforming Structure. Unless otherwise prohibited by the provisions of this Article, a nonconforming structure may continue to be occupied. B. Nonconforming Use, Unless otherwise prohibited by provisions of this Article, a nonconforming use may be continued and normal or routine maintenance of the structure containing a nonconforming use shall be permitted. Normal or routine maintenance shall include any maintenance or repair which does not impermissibly enlarge or alter the structure containing a nonconforming use, in compliance with the provisions of Section 10-103, Enlargement or Alteration of a Nonconforming Land Use. SECTION 10-103 ENLARGEMENT OR ALTERATION OF A NONCONFORMING LAND USE. A. Enlargement or Alteration of Nonconforming Land Use Prohibited. The right to continue a nonconforming land use terminates immediately when the nonconforming land use is enlarged, expanded, extended, or altered in any of the following ways, and the property owner does not successfully pursue any of the options specified in these regulations at Section 10-107, Notice of Termination and Right to Bring Enforcement Action. 3. Enlargement or Alteration of Nonconforming Structures. Unless otherwise allowed by provisions of Section 10-103(B) below, the alteration, repair or enlargement of a nonconforming structure in any which would increase the degree of nonconformity with respect to the floor area, setback or height regulations of this Code. 2. Addition of New Structure. The addition of a new structure containing, or accessory to, the nonconforming land use. 3. Enlargement and Alteration of Conforming Structure. Unless otherwise allowed by provisions of Section 10-103(8), the enlargement and alteration of a conforming structure containing, or accessory to, a nonconforming land use, including an increase in floor area, an increase in height, or any other alteration or improvement in excess of normal or routine maintenance of the structure that increases the nonconformity of the use and which violates the requirements this Code. GARFIELD COUNTY UNIFIED LAND USE RESOLUTION OF 2008, AS AMENDED 10-1 ARTICLE X NONCONFORMING LAND USE 10-103 ENLARGEMENT OR ALTERATION OF A NONCONFORMING LAND USE Enlargement and Alteration of Land Area. Enlargement and -alteration in the land area occupied by the nonconforming land use, unless the basic nature of the use, at the time it became nonconforming, clearly indicated or contemplated such an increase or alteration. 5. Enlargement and Alteration Creating a Hazard or Nuisance. Any enlargement and/or alteration of the nonconforming land use which has the effect or threatened effect of creating a hazard or nuisance on or off the property, of adversely affecting the character of the neighborhood, or of intensifying the use of the land or its need for services. B. Permissible Alterations of Nonconforming Land Use. The following shall not be considered prohibited enlargement or alteration of a nonconforming land use. 1. Change in Ownership. A change in ownership of the property upon which the nonconforming land use is located. 2. Alteration Required for Public Health and Safety. An alteration or expansion which the Chief Building Official determines to be necessary to rectify a hazardous health or safety situation, or to comply with the public health or safety requirements of another governmental entity having lawful jurisdiction over the structure. 3. Alteration Required by ADA. An alteration or expansion necessary to comply with applicable accessibility Codes and/or Statutes (Resolution 2010-26). 4. Extension of Nonconforming Use Within the Structure. An extension of the nonconforming use within the structure containing the use, provided that such extension is not accompanied by structural alteration identified in Section 10-103(A)(3). 5. Addition of Solar EnergyDevice. The addition of a solar energy device to a nonconforming structure or a structure containing a nonconforming use. 6. Routine Maintenance. Any replacement or upgrading of outmoded or worn equipment or supplies provided such activity does not create a hazard or nuisance as identified in Section 10-103(A)(5), above. 7. Structures Associated With Nonconforming Agricultural Use. Owners of legal building lots containing agricultural uses which have become nonconforming as a result of adoption or amendment of this Code may restore, modify and maintain existing conforming structures, and may construct new conforming structures, provided such structures are directly related to the agricultural use, and provided the nonconforming use is not enlarged or altered in any other way which violates the Code. GARFIELD COUNTY UNIFIED LAND USE RESOLUTION OF 2008, AS AMENDED 10.2 ARTICLE X NONCONFORMING LAND USE 10-103 ENLARGEMENT OR ALTERATION OF A NONCONFORMING LAND USE 8. Replacement of Mobile Home A mobile home which is a nonconforming use, or which is authorized by these regulations, may be replaced by another mobile home on the same lot provided that the replacement mobile home conforms to the requirements of the Building Code Resolution of the County, and to the performance requirements of this Resolution. A mobile home may be replaced by a permanent conventional single family dwelling provided it meets all other site requirements of this land use code. 9. Building on Nonconforming Lot. A lot legally created prior to this land use code may be built upon, provided any structure build is in conformity with all of the other provisions of this code. SECTION 10-104 CHANGE OF A NONCONFORMING LAND USE. A nonconforming land use shall only be changed to a land use which is conforming in the zoning district in which the use is located. Any change of a nonconforming land use to another use shall immediately terminate the right to continue the nonconforming land use, and thereafter the property shall only be used in conformity with the use provisions of its zoning district. SECTION 10-105 DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURE CONTAINING A NONCONFORMING USE. A. Structure Deemed Destroyed. A nonconforming structure or structure containing a nonconforming use shall be deemed destroyed when either greater than fifty (50) percent of its floor area, or greater than fifty (50) percent of its actual value (as determined by the Garfield County Assessor) is destroyed. B. Structure intentionally Damaged or Destroyed. The right to continue a nonconforming land use terminates immediately when the structure containing that land use is damaged or destroyed by an intentional act of the property or structure owner or their agent. C. Permit Review Required. Restoration or reconstruction allowed by the provisions of this Article shall be subject to the permit requirements of this Code and the appropriate permit review process as set forth in Article IV, Application and Review Procedures of this Code. D. Restoration of Structure. When a nonconforming structure or structure containing a nonconforming use is damaged or destroyed by causes outside the control of the owner or their agent, the structure may be restored and the nonconforming use may be reestablished. 1. Restoration of the structure must be commenced within six (6) months after the date on which the structure was damaged or destroyed and completed within one year after the date on which the restoration was commenced. Upon approval by the Board of County Commissioners at a GARFIELD COUNTY UNIFIED LAND USE RESOLUTION OF 2008, AS AMENDED 10-3 ARTICLE X NONCONFORMING LAND USE 10-105 DAMAGE QR DESTRUCTION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURE CONTAINING A NONCONFORMING USE public hearing, these times may be extended for a reasonable period upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances by the property owner or the owner's agent. 2. A nonconforming structure which has been destroyed may be restored to its original location, floor area, and height provided that such restoration complies with the current provisions of the Building Code. 3. Reconstruction or restoration of a structure located in the Floodplain Overlay District shall comply with applicable design and construction requirements for land use in a Floodplain Overlay District, set forth in Section 3-401 of Article III, Zoning. SECTION 10-106 ABANDONMENT OF A NONCONFORMING LAND USE. The right to continue a nonconforming land use shall terminate if the land use is determined to be abandoned. A. Determination of Abandonment. 1. A nonconforming land use shall be determined abandoned if the use is discontinued for an uninterrupted period of six (6) months or more, as a result of causes within the control of the property owner or their agent, unless the use is governed by Section 10-105 (D)(1). 2. A nonconforming land use may be determined abandoned if the use is discontinued for an uninterrupted period of Tess than six (6) months if the property owner expressly states an intent to abandon the land use, or engages in action which unambiguously expresses an intent to abandon. SECTION 10-107 NOTICE OF TERMINATION AND RIGHT TO BRING ENFORCEMENT ACTION A. Written Notification, In the event that the Director receives information that the right to continue a nonconforming land use has been or may have been terminated, the Director shall provide a written notification of this determination by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the property owner, and to the parcel address, all as shown on the records of the County Assessor. The property owner shall have thirty (30) calendar days after the date of the notification within which to provide evidence satisfactory to the Director to show that the determination is in error, to abate the illegal enlargement or alteration, or to file an appeal of the Director's determination to the Board of County Commissioners. In any appeal, the property owner shall have the burden to show that the right to continue the nonconforming use was not terminated according to the applicable provisions of this Article, when judged in light of the history and nature of the use and the circumstances of the alleged termination. GARFIELD COUNTY UNIFIED LAND USE RESOLUTION OF 2008, AS AMENDED 10-4 ARTICLE X NONCONFORMING LAND USE 10-107 NOTICE OF TERMINATION AND RIGHT TO BRING ENFORCEMENT ACTION B. Right to Bring Enforcement Action. Nothing in these regulations shall alter or diminish the County's right to take enforcement action against the unlawful continuation of a nonconforming land use. 1. Enforcement shall be pursuant to the provisions of Article XII, Enforcement. 2. Except in the case of an illegal enlargement or alteration for which the owner is provided with a thirty (30) day opportunity to abate, any failure by the Director to provide notification of a determination of termination shall in no way entitle the property owner to continue or resume a nonconforming use terminated under provisions of these regulations. GARFIELD COUNTY UNIFIED LAND USE RESOLUTION OF 2008, AS AMENDED 10-5 (This Page Left Blank Intentionally) GARFIELD COUNTY UNIFIED LAND USE RESOLUTION OF 2008, As AMENDED 10-6 LIJe3S 5��1 6oie1e_) Garfield County November 20, 2013 Steven M. Beattie Beattie, Chadwick & Haupt, LLP Attorneys and Counselors at Law 932 Cooper Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Community Development 108 811i Street, Suite 401. Glenwood Spring~. CO 81601 Office: 970-945-8212 Fax: 970-384-347(1 EXHIBIT i DELIVERED VIA EMAIL and USPS RE: CouldfJammaron Commercial Park - Special Use Permit Resolution 97-92 Parcel # 2185-353-04-001 Dear Mr. Beattie: 1 would like to thank both you and Mr. Mark Gould for finding time in your schedules to accommodate a meeting with County staff onOctober 31, 2013, and discuss the operations at 4067 County Road 154, also referred to as the Eastbank LLC property. The purpose of our meeting was to determine if the current activities in the area leased by Gould Construction and designated by the Special Use Permit (SUP), issued in 1997 to Joe Jammaron (property owner at that time) and Mark Gould, were consistent with the conditions of Resolution 97-92. The meeting highlighted that it is important to clarify that there are two types of uses presently occurring on the property: (1) those which were approved by Resolution; and (2) those which are "legal non -conforming uses" not conducted pursuant to a permit. Resolution No. 97-92 approved a Special Use Permit "only for the storage of heavy equipment and nonconforming uses agreed to in letters to Joe Jammaron dated November 2, 1994, and December 1, 1994, from the Garfield County Planning Department. Any modification to the Commercial Park designation will require the modification of the Special Use Permit though the applicable process in existence at the time of any proposed modification." See Resolution at ¶ 5 (emphasis added). The November 2, 1994 letter focuses solely on the "truck repair and maintenance facility," and the allowance for outside storage of vehicles which the company is repairing. The December 1, 1994 letter states that "a maximum of thirty (30) vehicles stored outside of the main building is a reasonable limit." Neither these letters, nor the conditions in Resolution No. 97-92 addresses the storage and processing of materials which have been the subject of our conversations. Even if the intent was to include in the SUP an expansion of pre- existing, non -conforming materials storage or processing, the plain language of the Resolution does not address these uses and cannot be read to include uses not specifically enumerated. Therefore, the SUP only permits storage of heavy equipment on the southern 2.44 acres of Parcel 2A (Plat record #813402) and a truck repair, maintenance facility with outside storage of a maximum of 30 vehicles on approximately 3.9 acres on the remainder of Parcel 2A. Please refer to the attached map, This means that other land uses presently occurring on the property must fall into the second category of "legal non -conforming uses" in order to be allowed to continue without violating the Land Use and Development Code. The information and historical background that you both provided at that meeting was very useful in forming our opinion about Mr, Gou1d's current use on the Eastbank LLC property, Staff has concluded that the current storage and processing of materials are a continuation of past legal non -conforming mineral extraction uses. It is important to document the existing uses on the site because the provision of the currently adopted Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) now disallow the enlargement, expansion, extension, or alteration of a pre-existing non -conforming land use. The intent of this letter is threefold: (1) to memorialize the history of the uses on this property; (2) to explain how revisions to land use regulations over time have changed how a legal nonconforming use may continue; and (3) to clearly identify those uses that will be allowed to continue as legal nonconforming uses on the Gould Construction site. History of Uses on the Eastbank LLC Property During our meeting Mr. Gould referred to the "proposed use" and history of the site as outlined in the Land Use Change application submitted for the SUP in 1997. As stated in the application, the proposed use was .,.."to extend a pre-existing non -conforming use". Under the section labeled Industrial Operations, there were various references to other industrial uses on adjacent properties and to a company called Grand River. Paragraph B of Industrial Operations states "... that adjacent land will be no more affected by the above (i.e. impact from vapor, dust, smoke, etc) than by the former tenants, which used the land in the same manner as proposed herein." Based on references within the application it seerns the former tenant was Grand River, Mr. Gould explained that Grand River was a road construction company that processed materials and used an asphalt batch plant in its operations. It was Mr. Gould's contention that his operations currently are and have always been very similar to those of Grand River without the batch plant, therefore a continuation of a previous non -conforming uses and with less impact. Changes to Nonconforming Uses from 1978 to Present Under Section 7.07 of the 1978 Zoning Resolution, changing from one nonconforming use to another was permitted so long as the new use was "...considered to exhibit an equal or lesser degree of nonconformity than the existing use..." If the nonconforring use was discontinued for 6 months, future uses must be in conformity with the zoning resolution. The Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended (ULUR), did not treat changes to a nonconformity the same. Under Section 10-103.A of the ULUR, any change including enlargement, expansion, extension or alteration, of a nonconforming use to another would immediately terminate any right to continue a nonconforming use. If a nonconforming use or structure was abandoned or discontinued for 6 months all rights to continue the non -conforming use would be void. The most recent revisions to nonconforming uses are addressed in Article 10, Section 103.A. of the Land Use Development Code (LUDC) adopted on July 15, 2013. Under this code, a nonconforming use terminates if the landowner expressly states in writing to the Community Development Director, if it is abandoned or discontinued for 2 years or if the use is enlarged, expanded, extended or altered. These revisions to Garfield County's land use regulations are significant to Gould Construction operations on the L astbank LLC property. When Gould Construction received a Special Use Permit (SUP) in 1997, the company was operating under the 1978 Zoning Resolution which allowed a change in nonconforming uses so long as it exhibited an equal or lesser degree of nonconformity than previous uses. There is no record whether the nonconforming uses at the Gould site had ever been abandoned or discontinued. Mr. Gould states his operation has not changed and has been in continuous use since 1997. Therefore, current uses will be considered a legal nonconforming use under previous and present land use regulations. Current Uses and Conditions Based on the representation made by Mr, Gould, County Staff has concluded that storage and handling of materials (soils and gravel, sorting and cleaning) are legal non -conforming uses that have been in place since Gould Construction occupied the site in 1997. These operations will be allowed in addition to the uses permitted specifically by Resolution 97-92 (attached) as discussed above. In order to memorialize the parameters of operation for the aforementioned legal non- conforming status please provide the following information. These documents and this letter will become part of the Jamrnaron/Gould Special Use File to ensure that this operation can continue to operate as a legal nonconforming use. I. Detailed description of existing uses. 2. A sealed survey of the 2,44 acre site used for this commercial operation. 3. A site plan indicating location of various operations and storage of materials or equipment, 4. Sealed engineered plan addressing Best Management Practices for stormwater control and details relating to erosion control devices, spill containment and river protection methods. The legal non -conforming uses shall be contained within the area designated on the site plan provided by Gould Construction. Any change including the , expansion, enlargement, extension or alteration of the uses will also terminate the right to continue the nonconforming uses. Pursuant to Section 10-104.A.1 of the Land Use and Development Code (effective July 15, 2013), a nonconforming use shall be determined abandoned if the use is discontinued for an uninterrupted period of two (2) years or more as a result of causes within the control of the property owner or their agent, unless the use is governed by section 10-102.D.2. Section 10- 102.D.2 addresses reconstruction of damaged or destroyed structures. Failure by the County to provide notification of a determination of abandonment or termination shall in no way entitle the property owner to continue or resume a nonconforming use determined to be abandoned or terminated under provisions of the adopted land use code Resp,: ctfully, ale 11 Carmoney Code Enforcement Officer Community Development Garfield County Administration Building 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 cc: Andy Schwaller, Chief Building Official (via Email) Tamra. Allen, Planning Manager (via Email) file T:\ code EnforcementlCornplaints-Site V'sits 12013\Gould Construction SUP CR154\1 1-20-13 Staff Portion On Gould SUP-Final.Docx Attachments: Resolution 97-92 Map of Parcel 2A c!11:11,1111.1.14111!iii!tilliplilig..1.1111111IIlly! 111 Hill Ill II11IIIII[i$LP 1037 P'3e1 4470 H x.00 t?ARFIEL6 CLERK STATE OF COLORADO ) )53 County of Garfield ) At a regular hearing of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs on Monday the . nth of October AD 19 97 , there were present: Marian I Smith _-- Johnl�Aartin Larry McCown Don DeFord Chuck Deschenes Commissioner Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Attorney Clerk of the Board County Administrator when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO 97-92 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR JOE & GERALDINE RAE JAMMARON AND MARK GOUL17 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioner, of Garfield County, Colorado, has received appticcation Erten Joe and Geraldine Rte Jamrnaron and Mark Gould to allow for the storage of construction related vehicles on the following described tract of land: Set Attached: Exhibit A (in the State of Colorado and the County of Garfield); and WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on the 2nd day of June, 1997, upon the question of whether the shave -described Special Use Permit should be granted or denied, at which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the issuance of said Special Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the Board on the basin of substantial competent evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, hu made the following determination of fact: 1. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. bt 1 111V1131110 11111111B 1111111 I111 514788 1a/0V19r/ 83:28P 11837 P382 447 2 er 3 R 8.80 D 1.80 H 818 carman CLERK 2. That the hearing before the Board o1 County Comntisaioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent farts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing. 3. That the application is in compliance wish the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 4. For the above stated and other reasons, the proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens ofGan5eld County.. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that the Special Use Permit be and hereby is authorized permitting the use of the above described tract of land for the storage of construction related vehicles, upon the following specific conditions; 1. That all proposals of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval unless stated otherwise by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the applicant be required to participate on a proportionate impact basis in the improvement of the State Highway 82/CR 154 intersection, if the County establishes an imtprove neat program during the term of any lease on the associated property that is not tied to a nonconforming use. 3. That all vehicles accessing Highway 82 from the site will only use the CR 154/Hwy. 82 intersection north of the site, except for vehicular safety purposes. Generally, vehicles will use the CR 154/CR 1141Hwy 82 intersection for a.,+cess to the site, except for safety purposes due to the length of die vehicles. 4. That any ofoa structures meet the 1994 Uniform Building Code requirements for the type of occupancy proposed. 5. That the Commercial Part Special Use Permit is approved only for the storage of heavy equipment and nonoordnmting uses agreed to in letters to Yoe'amunaron dated November 2, 1994 and December 1, 1994, from the Garfield County Planning Department. Any modification to the ConunercistPhrk designation, will require the modification of the Special Use Permit, through the applicable process in existence at the time of any proposed modif eatio on. 11011 Il!haJIH1,1111111.111-111I11.II 11Q�1li l 514714 1e/07/1097 8a:2Q B1037 P383 447 3 of 3 R 0.08 0 8.08 N e.ee GARFIELD CLERK DetedtltiaL_dayof October ,A.D.19 47.. ATTEST: GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COIW SSiONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Chairman Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following iota: COMMISSIONER CHAIRMAN MARIAN I. SMTTI± COMMISSIONER JCI1N F. MARTIN COMMISSIOER LARRY L. MCCOWN L7CftI-�-RI i�-h" A 7. 6, 23,02 i n'and29L Resterly trest In and Northerly of all theeRoaring to Pork River, all that part of Lot 19 Southerly of the - Southerly right-of-way line of Colorado State Highway 02. end ell that part of Lots 24 and 25 Southerly end Nexterly of the Southwesterly right -of -wee llne of laid Colorado State Highway 62, all 14 Section 95, Township 6 South, Range 89 Wear_ of the 6th P.M., EXCEPT for any part of the ahove- deacrLbed lands within the right-of-way of said Hlryhway e2, Together with all water rights coed upon, or in connec- tion with any of said lands above-described and P.rticularly SS shares of the capital to of the Glenwood Irrigation Company and the water and ditch rights evidenced thereby: and Including Grantor's interest In and to all oil, gas, wand, gravel 4nd all other winerale and mineral rights on ell of the above-deecrfbed lands. A parcel of Land situated In Lot 27, Section 31, Township s south, Range 89 went of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Garfield, Strata of Colorado: said parcel being more particularly described A. follows: Commencing at the Northeast Corner of said Loot 27, a tebar and cap in place) thence 5. 34.20'06" W. along the North line of said Lot 27, 241.03 foot to the True Point of Be;9 ,,7 l thence leaving said Horth lire S. 25'29'00' H. 197.63 feetto a point on the centerline of the Roaring York River; thence N. 75'39'12. W. alongsaid centerline 212.76 feet.; thanes R. 82"09.77. W. along paid centerline 277.65 fret; thence leaving geld centerline N. 00`09'00" W. 47,07 feet to a point on the North line of said Lot 23p thence N. 84.20'06" E. along said North line 559.37 feet to the Tru.o Point of 8e9ian7ng, containing 1.21 acres, more or less; Subject to easements, encumbrances, terms and con- ditions of lease andliens of record, and together with Grantor's tighte and obligations under 1 for a peel and conveyed herein, other minerals and business uses f Portions of the property AYE ,AYE AYE C. sJalayy 89OT£LEt tomOS 4.1• 80ieica Parcel 2185-353-04-001 S I ND L90t7 2SP LZ46E Ssa1ppV Area of Non -=Conforming Activities COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1801 19th Street Golden, Colorado 80401 303-384-2655 May 19, 2015 David Pesnichak Garfield County Community Development 108 8'h Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 EXHIBIT Location: S!h Section 35, T6S, R89W of the 6th P.M. 39.4834, -107.2938 Subject: Eastbank, LLC — Minor Subdivision —Administrative Review File Number M11SA-8259; Garfield County, CO; CGS Unique No, GA -15-0006 Dear Mr. Pesnichak:: Karen Berry State Geologist Colorado Geological Survey has reviewed the above -referenced minor subdivision referral. 1 understand the applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 38,2 -acre parcel into three parcels. Proposed Parcel 1, 3.7 acres, will contain a proposed FedEx warehouse and distribution facility. Parcel 2, 17.6 acres, will contain the existing InterMountain Environmental Services and Gould Construction facilities. Parcel 3, 16.9 acres, is currently undeveloped. With this referral, I received a FedEx Ground — Eastbank Site Minor Subdivision Application (Western Slope Consulting, April 23, 2015), including a Geotechnical Engineering Study by HP Geotech (February 27, 2015). CGS agrees that the site does not appear to contain or be exposed to any geologic hazards that would preclude the proposed uses and density. HP's report contains a good description of subsurface conditions and soil engineering properties based on the results of 14 borings and lab testing, and makes appropriate recommendations regarding foundations, floor slabs, subsurface drainage, retaining walls, pavements, grading and surface drainage. However: Subsidence hazard. The property is underlain by Eagle Valley Evaporite, and numerous sinkholes and soil - collapse occurrences have been identified within several thousand feet of the site. Sinkholes, subsidence and ground deformation due to collapse of solution cavities and voids are a serious concern in the Eagle Valley Evaporite. Infrequent sinkhole formation is still an active geologic process in the Roaring Fork Valley, and ground subsidence related to the dissolution of evaporite bedrock is an unpredictable risk that should not be ignored. If conditions indicative of subsidence or sinkhole formation are encountered during construction, an alternative building site should be considered or the feasibility of mitigation should be evaluated. The applicant and tenants should be advised of the sinkhole potential, since early detection of building distress and timely remedial actions are important factors in reducing the cost of building repairs should an undetected subsurface void start to develop into a sinkhole after construction. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have questions or need further review, please call me at (303) 384-2643, or email Carlson@mines.edu. Sincerely, Jill arisen, C.E.G. Engineering Geologist GA -15-0006_1 Eastbank LLC Minor subdivisiondocx 3:42 PM, 091912015 Roaring Fork School District 1405 Grand Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970.384.6000 Fax: 970.384.6005 www.rfsd.kl 2.co.us May 1 5, 2015 David Pesnichak, Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 EXHIBIT q Dr. Diana Sirko, Superintendent Shannon Pelland, Chief Financial Officer Dr. Rob Stein, Chief Academic Officer Dear Mr. Pesnichak- Thank you for the opportunity to comment on referral applications MSA 8259 and MIPA 8260. The District owns approximately 35 acres at East Bank. Our property borders the north and west sides of the site under review. We are currently in the early stages of planning for the first of two possible schools to be located at Eastbank. We are working with Yancy Nichol (Sopris Engineering) and FHU out of Denver to evaluate access from SH82, CR154, and the ability of roads/intersections to accommodate both current and projected future land use in the vicinity, as well as safe and efficient access to the school site. As we await the results of the traffic study and engineering analysis, we are concerned that the proposed configuration of the Fed Ex site may limit options to address recommendations. As a result, we are requesting that a 60 -foot right-of-way be preserved on the east side of the Fed Ex site. The District is willing to work with the developer to complete a lot line adjustment that would extend the lot line on the north side of the Fed Ex site into District property, and would add the 60 foot corridor currently on the east side of the Fed Ex site to what is now the District's parcel. We met with the developer yesterday, and he has agreed to investigate this option further. We are requesting that the lot line adjustment to establish this 60 -foot corridor in exchange for District property be a condition of approval. We appreciate the developer's willingness to work with us in preserving our ability to ensure that traffic flow is as safe and efficient as possible for not only our school site but the surrounding residential neighborhoods and light industrial uses. We do not want to delay this process in any way, and will work with the County and the developer to expedite the lot line adjustment process. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have additional questions or concerns. Sincerely, 604÷67/1 annon Pelland Assistant Superintendent/CFQ Olv EXHIBIT 1 f_5, May 11, 2015 To: David Pesnichak, Garfield County Planner From: Ron Biggers, Deputy Fire Marshal, RE: file number MIPA-8260, project name major impact review -warehouse and distribution Facility Eastbank LLC/Federal Express grounds, applicant Eastbank LLC and Elizabeth Macgregor (Federal Express -Operator Comments Because of the challenges this site presents (no municipal water supply) and uses of the proposed building (multiple vehicle and package storage for distribution) we require the design team include, at the applicants expense a Fire Protection Engineer (SFPE). Section 104.7.2, Technical Assistance, of the 2009 International Fire Code (IFC) gives us the authority to require an SFPE be added. The function of the fire protection engineer is to determine the site and building fire flow water demands, the building's fire protection system needs like fire pump or pumps, automatic fire suppression, fire alarm, smoke evacuation and possible gas detection systems designs. The design of the automatic fire suppression system in and of itself is not a straight forward design because of the commodities the building will house History has proven that an improperly designed privately owned and maintained remote standalone fire flow water supply system has hampered firefighting efforts resulting in complete structure Posses. The Fire Protection Engineer we recommend be consulted with on this project is; David Tomecek Jensen Hughes. 8461 Turnpike Drive Westminster, CO80031 303-439-0485 ext. 14012 office If the applicant choses to use another SFPE to work with them. They shall submit that SFPE's credentials and references to us for our review and approval. Additional idea for the County Staff to look at Because there is not a reliable firefighting water supply in the area of this site. We suggest that the Garfield County Staff recommend/require if they can, that the applicants work with the adjoining land owners to establish a shared fire flow water system. If a shared system is developed all present and future building/property owners will benefit from it. Working together now to design one adequate system that future developers can tap into will save money by eliminating the duplication of efforts and may reduce insurance costs. 1nl {r frcT 09'r1 C.T`n rrm I,I rAri'f rw-1.rl ['nrlikTi,[+ r1f- fin A TN r1 0 rli n^P11 'l0# fAnn r'A v (V1r n4e Wert, Ad Name: 11159136A Customer: Western Slope Consulting Your account number is: 1023467 PROOF OF PUBLICATION THE, RIFLE CITIZEN TELEGRAM STATE OF COLORADO, COUNTY OF GARFIELD 1, Michael Bennett, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of The Rifle Citizen Telegram, that the same weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Garfield for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 5/7/2015 and that the last publication of said notice was. dated 5/7/2015 the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, 1 have here unto set my hand this 05108/2015, Michael Bennett, Publisher Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado this 05/08/2015. {] My Ctlnrnissorl Expires 1110112010 Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2015 PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that the Castbank, LLC and Eliza- beth Macoregor has applied to the Garfield Coun- ty Director of Community Development,to re- quest a Land Use Change Permit to allow the subdivision of an existing 38.2 acre parcel Into Three separate parcels of 3.681 acres, 17.591 acres and 16.927 acres and located in the County of Garfield. Stale of Colorado:, fo-wd: Legal Desc,Dtlon; Quarter: SW Section: 35 Town- shrp: 6 Range: 89 Subdivision: EASTBANK PAR- CEL 2 LOT SPLIT PARCEL 2A. PLAT REC4813402 practical Description' A 38.2 acre property located approximately 2 miles south of Inc City of Glen- wood Springs off County Road 154 and known as Parcel Number 2195.353-04-001. Description of Perkiest: Administrative Review 10 allow the subdivision of an existing 38.2 acre par- cel Into Three separate parcels of 3.681 acres, 17.591 acres and 16:927 acres. Ail persons affected by the proposed Land Ilse Change Permit are Invited to comment regarding the application. you may state your viewsby let- ter, or you may call the Community Develop- ment Department at (979) 9454212 regarding the application. The Director will give consider- ation to the comments of surrounding properly owners, and others affected, in deciding whether to grantor deny the request. The application may be reviewed al Itle office of the Planning Department located at 108 819 Street, Suite 401, Garfield County Administration Building. Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The Director will issue a decision on this appll- cation on Friday May 29, 2015 therefore any comments to be considered most be received prior to that date. Planning Division, Community Development Garfield County Published in the Citizen Telegram May 7, 2015. (11159136) t EXHIBIT David Pesnichak From: Jason White <jwhite@rfta.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 5:12 PM To: Lindsay Krol; David Pesnichak Subject: RFTA referral comments on MISA 8259 and MISA 8260 Attachments: Service Standards August 2014 update.pdf Importance: High Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Lindsay and David, EXHIBIT 1 RFTA received referral application requests for two projects on the proposed 38 -acre Fed -Ex property along CR 154. Comments below are in response to both referral applications: • MISA-8259 - Minor Subdivision-Eastbank, LLC http://www.garfield-countv.com/community- development/documents/proiect-information/MISA-82 59 •Minar-Subdivision-Eastbank,LLC.pdf • MIPA-8260 - Warehouse and Distribution Facility-Eastbank, LLC Federal Express Ground, Major Impact Review http://www.garfield-county.corn/community-development/documents/proiect-information/MIPA-8260- Warehouse-and-Distribution-Facility-Eastbank,LLC-Federal-Express-Ground.pdf RFTA does not see any major issues with either project application, with regard to public transit or the Rio Grande Trail. Staff does have some minor comments about the site access. The traffic impact assessments project 230 additional ADT to/from the new shipping facility, which is approximately an 87% increase over current traffic access. The Rio Grande Trail crossing of CR 154 is less than 1/4 mile to the northwest from the proposed facility entrance. Although the trail is well -signed in both directions for both motorists and trail users, the trail geometry is not perpendicular to CR 154 and the site lines have led to some close calls. Although motorists are only required to yield to trail users at this crossing, Staff would like delivery drivers to be cautious of bikers that may neglect to follow the stop signs on the trail. Please let us know if there any additional questions. We appreciate your Staff efforts to enhance and expand public transit and trails connections during land use development project negotiations. Thank you once again for allowing RFTA to be a referral agency for land use projects with regional significance. Jason White RFTA Assistant Planner 970-384-4968 Leave the car, ride your bike, grab a bus..... From: Lindsay Krol [mailto:Ikrolfagarfield-county.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 3:03 PM To: Michael Prehm; Kelly Cave; isearsgarcosherif.com; Steve Anthony; Morgan Hill; chrismountaincross-eng.com; Chris Bornholdt; Mecan.sullivan@state.co.us; kaberry@mines.edu; daniel,roussin@state.co.us; bret.icenogle@state.co.us; scott.hover@state.co.us; rbiggers@ci.glenwood-springs.co.us; spelland@rfschools.com; Jason White; jbuck@carbondaleco,net; andrew.mcgregor@cogs.us 1 May 20, 2015 1 EXHIBIT Garfield County David Pesnichak Garfield County Community Development Department RE: Eastbank Fed Ex MIPA-8260 and MISA-8259 Dear Dave, Vegetation Management Thank you for the opportunity to comment on both permits, as they both use the same Wildlife and Ecological Assessment, my comments shall apply for both permits. Noxious Weeds Staff requests that the applicant manage the County listed noxious weeds mentioned in the Wildlife and Ecological Assessment including Scotch thistle (page 22) and Russian -Olive (page 24), Please provide treatment records to the Vegetation Management Department by October 31, 2015. Sincerely, Z-16-7 -. Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Manager 0375 County Road 352, Bldg 2060 Rifle, CO 61650 Phone: 970-945-1377 x 4305 Fax: 970-625-5939 Western Slope Consulting, LLC May 28, 2015 Mr. David Pesnichak Garfield County Community Development Department Planning Manager 108 8th St ## 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Pesnichak: I am requesting a 30 day extension to June 29, 2015 on the Director's determination on the Eastbank, LLC Minor Subdivision Application File Number MISA-8259 currently scheduled for May 29, 2015. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (970-963-7172) s ori ultin a . Sincerely, Western Slope Consulting, LLC 0165 Basalt Mt Dr Carbondale, CO - 81623 —970-963-7172 wsconsultin,(a sopris.net Garfield County TIMELINE WAIVER REQUEST 5/28/2015 (Date) I Davis Farrar (print name) hereby waive any applicable timelines specified in the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended and in the Colorado Revised Statutes for scheduling and/or conducting a public hearing before the Garfield County Planning Commission and/or the Board of County Commissioners for (project name and number) Eastbank, LLC Minor Subdivision Application, File MISA-8259 Signed Cy; X40 (Applicant or Autho Inc] Representative) Western Slope Consulting, LLC June 29, 2015 Mr. David Pesnichak Garfield County Community Development Department Planning Manager 108 8th St#401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Pesnichak: EXHIBIT am requesting an extension to July 29, 2015 on the Director's determination on the Eastbank, LLC Minor Subdivision Application File Number M1SA-8259 currently scheduled for June 29, 2015. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (970-963-7172) sconsultin2 sorris.net Sincerely, Western Slope Consulting, LLC 0165 Basalt Mt Dr Carbondale, CO - 81623 — 970-963-7172 w'sconsu l ti nr.(a'sotiris.net July 17, 2015 Mr. David Pesnichak Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 MOUNT/i ENGINEE Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design RE: Review of Revised Minor Subdivision Application: MISA 8259 Dear David: This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the revised Minor Subdivision application for Eastbank, LLC. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The review generated the following comments: 1. The water quality reports for the existing and the new wells did not have results for coliform. The Applicant should provide these result. 2. The proposed Lot 3 well has not been constructed or tested. The Applicant should provide results of the pump and water quality tests. 3. The application materials only address detention for the FedEx facility. The Applicant provides a drainage study that states each lot would handle their own storm water management. Since there is no anticipated development associated with either Lot 2 or Lot 3 at this time, requiring future development to provide storm water management would be an appropriate condition. However since there is existing commercial use on Lot 2, some assurances by the Applicant that the existing uses are using BMPs to treat their existing storm water discharges seems appropriate given the proximity to the river. 4. The existing driveway access fur Loi 2 is pw'upuscd i.0 be used fur Lot 3. This access dues not ineet. County standards and has grades of 17.0% at the intersection. The Applicant has requested a waiver. Ultimately if this request is not granted, the Applicant would need to comply with County Road Standards. Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, n in Cross Engit eeg, Inc. is Hale, PE 8261/2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com David Pesnichak From: Jason White <jwhite@rfta.com> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 5:31 PM To: David Pesnichak Subject: RFTA comments on MIPA-8260 Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Completed EXHIBIT David, Please accept these as RFTA's final comments on the major impact review for MIPA-8260, or the FedEx Facility on the Eastbank property. We realize this project has some consolidated impacts with the potential School District project on the adjacent property. RFTA's primary concern is that the existing Rio Grande Corridor at -grade crossing of CR 154 is already problematic in terms of potential conflicts between motorists and trail users because it does not have perpendicular geometry and the sight lines are sub -standard. With the proposed additional traffic at the primary FedEx access point, less than 200' south of our crossing, we are concerned that the increased traffic flow will increase the potential for conflicts between trail users and vehicles. The safety of trail users at this location is RFTA's primary concern. Please consider these additional comments: • The proposed FedEx -School District consolidated access at the northernmost driveway will greatly increase traffic levels with FedEx delivery trucks, school delivery trucks, school buses, parents etc. • The stacking distance from our CR 154 Corridor crossing to the proposed consolidated access point appears to be insufficient (less than 200') • If additional traffic adversely impacts safety for Corridor users at this location, it may be advisable to install stop signs along CR 154 to stop cars when trail users are present. This would be inverse of the current usage, where trail users must yield to road users • We do not see in the traffic study where the existing CR 154 annual average daily traffic (AADT) data exists. We see a projection of an additional 240 AADT. Baseline traffic data would help RFTA better understand the extent of the proposed increase in traffic crossing the Rio Grande right-of-way • Per RFTA's Corridor trail counters from May 2014 to May 2015, approximately 41,517 users crossed near the CMC turnoff(approximately 1.5 miles to the south of the project site); and approximately 45,340 users crossed near Holy Cross Energy (approximately 1.5 miles to the north of the project site). This data is provided to show that there is already a very high level of users in the project site vicinity. • We would appreciate it if RFTA's Corridor bike/ped usage data could be incorporated into future traffic studies as yet another adjacent road/trail segment to be measured. The projected impact would likely change significantly • RFTA would most likely engage its rail engineers in a review of proposed crossings of the Corridor • If there is an attempt to consolidate the FedEx and School District projects into one referral, RFTA would appreciate the opportunity to revisit our FedEx comments. There may be some new mutually beneficial infrastructure solutions that would result from project consolidation. • We saw in a School District email that the District may need 50-70' of cut/fill access for the southernmost drive to satisfy County infrastructure standards. RFTA believes that this could overlap into RFTA's 200' wide federal land grant section of the Rio Grande Corridor. RFTA is happy to provide a map showing our Corridor boundaries if the County GIS does not already have this data. 1 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this regional development project. Jczsovt White RFTA Assistant Planner 970-384-4968 Leave the car, ride your bike, grab a bus..... The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. 2 COLORADO Division of Water Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 821 Denver, CO 80203 July 7, 2015 David Pesnichak Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 81" Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 84601 Re: Eastbank Minor Subdivision — Revised Case No. MISA-8259 Section 35, T6S, R89W, 6th PM Water Division 5, Water District 38 Dear Mr. Pesnichak: EXHIBIT 1 We have reviewed the above -referenced revised plan to subdivide a parcel of approximately 38+1 - acres into three lots. We previously commented on the original proposal on May 19, 2015. From the materials included it appears the revision to the original proposal relates primarily to access, a boundary adjustment and the restriction of use of Lot 3 until further county review. It does not appear that the proposed water supply has changed. In this proposal, Lot 1 would be approximately 3.8 acres; Lot 2 would be approximately 17.4 acres and Lot 3 remains approximately 16.9 acres. The applicant indicates the three lots will be served by individual on -lot wells and waste water will be treated through individual on-site septic systems. There are currently two existing wells on the parcel that will be utilized in the proposed subdivision, Proposed Lot 1 is to be served by a well operating under Permit No. 79070-F, issued on June 4, 2015 pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2), to use an existing well constructed on March 2, 2015 under Permit No. 296873 (cancelled). The use of groundwater under Permit No. 79070-F is limited to fire protection, drinking and sanitary facilities for a commercial business and the irrigation of not more than 15,450 square feet of lawn/landscape. The well shall be operated in accordance with one or more of the augmentation plans approved by the Division 5 Water Court for the Basalt Water Conservancy District (contract referenced on the well permit is BWCD contract #653). As of the date of this letter, evidence of pump installation has not been received. Evidence of pump installation must be received prior to the expiration date of this permit (June 4, 2016 unless extended) for the permit to remain valid. Proposed Lot 2 will be served by a well operating under Permit No. 50236-F. The permit was issued July 8, 1998, pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2), to use an existing well constructed in the 1960s. Use of the groundwater from the well is limited to drinking and sanitary purposes inside a 4,000 square foot office/repair shop building, occasional truck washing and floor washing, and not more than 1,000 square feet of landscaping irrigation. The well shall be operated only when a Basalt Water Conservancy District water allotment contract between the well owner and the district is in effect (contract referenced on the well permit is BWCD contract #312). Frorn our records, Permit No. 79071-F was issued on June 4, 2015 pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2) to construct a new well which will be located on proposed Lot 3. The use of groundwater from the well is limited to ordinary household purposes inside one (1) single family dwelling and the irrigation of not more than 17,000 square feet of home gardens and lawns. The well shall be operated in accordance with one or more of the augmentation plans approved by the Division 5 Water Court for the Basalt Water Conservancy District (contract referenced on the well permit is BWCD contract #652). As of the date of this letter evidence of well construction has not been received by this office. Evidence of well construction and pump 1313 Sherman Street. Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3581 F 303.866.3589 www.water.state.co.us •rs76. • David Pesnichak Garfield County Building and Planning Department Eastbank Minor Subdivision — Revised, Case No, MISA-8259 July 7, 2015 Page 2 of 2 installation must be received prior to the expiration date of this permit (June 4, 2016 unless extended) for the permit to remain valid. Section 37-92-602(3)(b)(III), C.R.S., requires that the cumulative effect of all wells in a subdivision be considered when evaluating material Injury to decreed water rights. The source of the proposed water supply would be from, or tributary to, the Colorado River. This area of the Colorado River is over - appropriated; therefore, an augmentation plan is required to offset depletions caused by the pumping of any wells. As indicated in the permit files, each of the current permits for the individual wells on the three proposed Tots have water allotment contracts with the Basalt Water Conservancy District and are to operate in accordance with one or more the of the augmentation plans approved by the Division 5 Water Court for the Basalt Water Conservancy District. Since the use of Lot 3 is not addressed in this proposal, please be aware that if a future approved use of the lot is different from the uses allowed under Permit No. 79071-F, a new well permit that operates in accordance with an approved augmentation plan will be required. A 4 -hour pump test was conducted for both existing wells by Resource Engineering and Ray's Well Done Pump Service on March 3, 2015. The well on proposed Lot 1, then permitted under Permit No. 296873 (now Permit No. 79070-F) was shown to produce 10 gallons per minute and the well with Permit No. 50236-F produced 20 gallons per minute. According to the report from Resource Engineering, the uses on Lot 1 are estimated to average a daily demand of 0.75 gpm over the course of the year and they conclude the water supply is "adequate to meet the domestic and irrigation uses for the proposed land use application". For Lot 2, Resource Engineering observed that the well has "historically served the potable demands for a small office on the property, landscape irrigation, truck washing and facility washing.' If the additional well for proposed Lot 3 has a similar production rate, the water supply should be physically adequate for the uses allowed under Permit No. 79071-F. Please note that the long term adequacy of any ground water source may be subject to fluctuation due to hydrological and climatic trends. Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(f), that the proposed water supply can be provided without causing material injury to decreed water rights so long as the applicant obtains (or maintains) well permits issued pursuant to C.R.S. 37-90-137(2) and the plans for augmentation operated by Basalt Water Conservancy District, for all wells in the subdivision and operates the wells in accordance with the terms and conditions of the well permits. Provided the sustained well yield of the proposed well is similar to Permit No. 79070-F and 50236-F, the proposed water supply is expected to be physically adequate. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact me for assistance. Sincerely, Megan Sullivan, P.E. Water Resource Engineer MAS: Eastbank Minor Subdivision-Revised.docx cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer Water Commissioner, District 38 x313 Sherman Street, Room 821. Denm,er. CO 80203 F 3033.866.3581 F 303.866.3589 www.water.state.co.us • Roaring Fork School District 1405 Grand Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 8160I Phone: 970.384.6000 Fax: 970.384.6005 www.rfsd.k12.co.us July 17, 2015 David Pesnichak, Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8`h Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Pesnichak- EXHIBIT 1 Dr. Diana Sirko, Superintendent Shannon PeHand, Chief Financial Officer Dr. Rob Stein, Chief Academic Officer This letter serves as a status update regarding our work with the owners of the Eastbank property and the future owners of the Fed Ex property regarding access and the boundary line adjustment. The Roaring Fork School District (RFSD) Board for Education has scheduled a special meeting Monday, July 20 to approve the following: • The final boundary line adjustment maps ■ An easement agreement between RFSD, the owners of the Eastbank property and the future owners of the proposed Fed Ex site that addresses the well, electric, and temporary constructions easements that will be granted by RFSD for the benefit of the Fed Ex parcel. The agreement also calls for an access easement across the Fed Ex parcel should County Road I54 be extended at some time in the future. • A Memorandum of Understanding between RFSD and the owners of the Eastbank property relocating interim access to a point further south on CR 154 on an existing road, providing for the general location and description of permanent access at a point further south on CR 154, and providing for the patties to establish agreements related to other utility easements as may be necessary to serve the school parcel. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Asst. Superintendent/CFO RESOURCE ENGINEERING I N C, Memorandum To: Nicole Garrimone Campagna, Esq, From: Michael J. Erion, P.E. CC: File: Date: 1325-17.1 May 18, 2015 Re: KW Glenwood, LLC — New Well Supplemental Water Quality Data EXHIBIT S -- Resource Engineering, Inc. 909 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970)-945-6777 Voice (970)-945-1137 Facsimile This memorandum presents supplemental water quality data for the new well drilled by KW Glenwood, LLC. The welt is located on the proposed Lot 1 of the Eastbank, LLC Minor Subdivision located within Parcel 2A of the Eastbank Lot Split Parcel A. The well was sampled by Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) on April 7, 2015 to retest the well for Gross Alpha radioactivity and for iron bacteria. The results are presented below. RESOURCE treated the well with a shock dose of chlorine on April 3, 2015, The procedures outlined in "Shock Chlorination of wells and Water Systems' by CDPHE, were followed based on the size and depth of the well. The well was purged of more than three well casing volumes on April 7, 2015 by Ray's Well Done Pump Service, RESOURCE then sampled the well water and shipped the samples under proper chain of custody to ACZ Laboratories, Inc. The Gross Alpha radioactivity is reported at 2.5 pCi/I and the prior test indicated a value of 24.3 pCifl. The drinking water standard is 15 pCill. The retest indicates that the Gross Alpha is less than the drinking water standard and the original result was likely an outliner.. Iron Bacteria was retested and is reported as present in the sample. Because the well is not in operation, RESOURCE was not able to mix the water in the well. The Chlorine may not have been fully distributed throughout the casing and into the annular space. The result may also indicate that iron bacteria is naturally occurring in this location. In the later case, the proposed facility would either accept the aesthetic nuisance of staining of fixtures and potential tastelodor issues, or provide disinfection treatment followed by filtration. Although coliform bacteria is not present in the original sampling, RESOURCE recommends disinfection of the drinking water system. From the Desk of Michael J. Erion, P.E. Page 1 of 1 A Z Laboratories, Inc. 2773 Downhill Drive Steamboat Springs. CO 80487 (800) 334-5493 Report to: Ryan McBride Resource Engineering, Ina. 909 Colorado Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Project ID: 1325-17.1 ACZ Project ID: L23673 Ryan McBride: Sill to: Melody Morris Resource Engineering, Inc. 909 Colorado Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Analytical Report April 30, 2015 Enclosed are the analytical results for sample(s) submitted to ACZ Laboratories, Inc. (ACZ) on April 08, 2015. This project has been assigned to ACZ's project number, L23673. Please reference this number in all future inquiries. All analyses were performed according to ACZ's Quality Assurance Plan. The enclosed results relate only to the samples received under L23673. Each section of this report has been reviewed and approved by the appropriate Laboratory Supervisor, or a qualified substitute. Except as noted, the test results for the methods and parameters fisted on ACZ's current NELAC certificate tetter (#ACZ) meet all requirements of NELAC. This report shall be used or copied only in its entirety. ACZ is not responsible far the consequences arising from the use of a partial report. All samples and sub -samples associated with this project will be disposed of after May 30, 2015. If the samples are determined to be hazardous, additional charges apply for disposal (typically $11/sample). If you would like the samples to be held longer than ACZ's stated policy or to be returned, please contact your Project Manager or Customer Service Representative for further details and associated costs. ACZ, retains analytical raw data reports for ten years. If you have any questions or other needs, please contact your Project Manager. Sue Webber has rev1evred and approved this report. fir L23673-1504301628 Page 1 of 18 A CZ Laboratories, Inc. 2773 Downhill Drive Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 (804) 334-5493 Resource Engineering, Inc. Project ID 1325-17.1 Sample ID: FEDEX NEW WELL Inorganic Analytical Results ACZ Sample ID: Date Sampled: Date Received: Sample Matrix: L23673-01 04/07/15 09.45 04/08/15 Ground Water Inorganic Prep Total Recoverable Digestion Metals Analysis Parameter Uranium, total recoverable REPJN.02.05.05.01 M200.8 JCP -MS 0.0038 Qua! XQ Units 11OL PQL 0411011573:00 mg/L 0.0001 0.0005 04/10/ scp 22:10 pmc L23673-1504301628 Page 2 of 18 ADZ Laboratories, Inc. 2773 Downhill Drive Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 (800) 334-5493 Resource Engineering, Inc. Project ID: 1325-17.1 Sample ID: FEDEX NEW WELL Inorganic Analytical Results ACZ Sample ID: Date Sampled: Date Received: Sample Matrix: L23673-02 04/07/15 09:45 04/08/15 Ground Water Wet Chemistry Parameter EPA Method Dilution : Result Quat XQ Units MRL PQL Rate Analyst Iron Related Bacteria HACH IRS -BART Slime Forming Bacteria HACH SLYM-SART Sulfate Reducing HACH SRB-BART Bacteria PRESENT PRESENT PRESENT 04/08/15 12:45 04/08/15 12:45 04/08/15 12:45 id id id REPI N.02.06,05.01 ' Please refer to Qualifier Reports for details. L23673-1504301628 Page 3 of 18 ADZ Laboratories, Inc. 2773 Downhill Onve Steamboat Springs. CO 80487 (800) 334-5493 Inorganic Reference Report Header Explanations Batch Found Limit Lower MDL PCN/SCN PQL QC Rec RPD Upper Sample A distinct set of samples analyzed at a specific time Value of the QC Type of interest Upper Limit far RPD, in %. Lower Recovery Limit, In % (except for LCSS, mg/Kg) Method Detection Limit. Same as Minimum Reporting Limit unless omitted or equal to the PQL (see comment tk5). Allows for instrument and annual fluctuations. A number assigned to reagents/standards to trace to the manufacturer's certificate of analysis Practical Quantitation Limit Synonymous with the EPA term 'minimum level". True Value of the Control Sample or the amount added to the Spike Recovered amount of the true value or spike added, in % (except for LCSS, mg/Kg) Relative Percent Difference, calculation used for Duplicate QC Types Upper Recovery Limit. in % (except for LCSS, mg/Kg) Value of the Sample of interest QC Sample Types AS ASI CCB CCV DUP IC8 ICV ICSAB LCSS LCSSD LCSW Analytical Spike (Post Digestion) Analytical Spike (Post Digestion) Duplicate Continuing Calibration Blank Continuing Calibration Verification standard Sample Duplicate Initial Calibration Blank Initial Calibration Verification standard Inter -element Correction Standard - A plus B solutions Laboratory Control Sample - Soil Laboratory Control Sample - Soil Dupiicate Laboratory Control Sample - Water LCSWD LFB LFM LFMD LRB MS MSD PBS PBW PQV SDL Laboratory Control Sample - Water Duplicate Laboratory Fortified Blank Laboratory Fortified Matrix Laboratory Fortified Matnx Duplicate Laboratory Reagent Blank Matrix Spike Matrix Spike Duplicate Prep Blank - Soil Prep Blank - Water Practical Quantitation Verification standard Serial Dilution QC Sample Type Explanations Blanks Control Samples Duplicates Spikes/Fortified Matrix Standard Verifies that there Is no or minimal contamination in the prep method or calibration procedure. Verities the accuracy of the method, including the prep procedure. Verifies the precision of the Instrument and/or method. Determines sample matrix interferences, if any. Verifies the validity of the calibration. A£Z Quatiilers (Quad) 13 Analyte concentration detected at a value between MDL and PQL. The associated value is an estimated quantity. H Analysis exceeded method hold timepH is a fled test with an immediate hold time. L Target analyte response was below the laboratory defined negative threshold. U The material was analyzed for, but was not detected above the level of the associated value. The associated value is either the sample quantdatwon limit or the sample detection limit. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) EPA 50014-83-020. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, March 1983. EPA 600IR-93-100. Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples, August 1993. EPA 600IR-94-111. Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples - Supplement 1, May 1994. EPA SW -846. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Comments (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) QC results calculated from raw data. Results may vary slightly if the rounded values are used in the calculations. Soil, Sludge, and Plant matrices for Inorganic analyses are reported on a dry weight basis. Animal matrices for inorganic analyses are reported on an 'as received' basis. An asterisk in the "XQ" column indicates there s an extended qualifier andior certification qualifier associated with the result. If the MDL equals the PQL or the MDL column is omitted. the POL is the reporting limit. For a complete Mst of ACZ's Extended Qualifiers, please click: hstp:'rwwrv.acz,corn public cextytt3IIist,pdf REP001.03.15.02 L23673-1504301628 Page 4 of 18 A Z Laboratories, Inc. 2773 Downhill Drive Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 (800) 334-5493 Resource Engineering, Inc, Inorganic QC Summary ACZ Project ID: L23673 Uranium, total recoverable ACZID WG381822 M200.8 ICP -MS TypeAnaJ zr d PCNISCN Q Sample Found !Jails ties Upper RPD Limit 4uar WG3818221CV ICV 04110/1521.45 M5150312-3 .05 .05354 mg&L 107 90 110 WG3818221CB ICB 04/10/15 21.45 U mg/L -0.0003 0.0003 WG381781LRB LRB 04110/1521:52 U m911- -0.00022 0.00022 W0381781LF8 LFB 04/10/1521:55 MS150407-2 .05 .05177 mg/L 104 85 115 L23708-01LFM LFM 04/10115 22:20 MS150407-2 .05 .0037 .05803 mg/ 109 70 130 L23708-01 LFMD LFMD 04/10/15 22:29 M3150407-2 .05 .0037 .05715 mg/L 107 70 130 2 20 L23673-1504301628 Page 5 of 18 ADZ Laboratories, Inc. 2773 Downhill Drive Steamboat Springs. CO 80487 (800) 334-5493 Resource Engineering, Inc. Inorganic Extended Qualifier Report ACZ Project ID: L23673 ACZ ID RUM PARAMETER METIFICO QUAL DESCRIP710M REPAD.15.06.05.01 No extended qualifiers associated with this analysis 1.23673-1504301628 Page 6 of 18 ADZ Laboratories, Inc. 2773 Downhill Drive Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 (800) 334-5493 Resource Engineering, Inc. Project ID: 1325-17.1 Sample ID: FEDEX NEW WELL Locator: RadioChemstry Analytical Results ACZ Sample ID: Date Sampled: Date Received: Sample Matrix: L23673-01 04/07/15 9:45 04/08/15 Ground Water Gross Alpha M900.0 Gross Alpha Gross Alpha - Corrected Calculation 04/16115 0:05 2.5 Gross Alpha - Corrected 04/30/15 15:48 -0.046 Radium 226 M903.1 Parameter Radium 226 Radium 228 M904.0 Parameter Measu€e Date Radium 228 Radon -222 SM7500-RN Parameter Measure Date Radon -222 3.9 3.6 pCiJL pCi/L Prep Method: dic Prep Method: calc Prep Method: Date, Prep Date Result Error(+/.t LLD Unts XQ t: 04/29)15 0:02 04129115 :17 04/09/15 18:31 Prep Date Prep Date 1.1 2.3 4.6 Result Error(+/-) LLD 17 20 Result Erre 1000 66 .3 20 pCi/L djc Prep Method: Units XQ Analyst pci/L LLD Units 22 pCi/L djc Prep Method: XQ Analyst mhm REPRC.02.06.05.01 L23673-1504301628 Please refer to Qualifier Reports for details. Page 7 of 18 ADZ Laboratories, Inc. 2773 Downhill Drive Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 (800) 334-5493 Radiochemistry Reference Report Header Explanations Batch A distinct set of samples analyzed at a specific time Error(+/-) Calculated sample specific uncertainty Found Value of the QC Type of interest Limit Upper limit for RPD, in %. LCL Lower Control Limit, in % (except for LOSS, mg/Kg) LLD Calculated sample specific Lower Limit of Detection PCN/SCN A number assigned to reagents/standards to trace to the manufacture's certificate of analysis PQL Practical Quantitation Limit QC True Value of the Control Sample or the amount added to the Spike Rec Amount of the true value or spike added recovered, in % (except for LCSS, mg/Kg) RER Relative Error Ratio, calculation used for Dup. QC taking into account the error factor. RPD Relative Percent Difference, calculation used for Duplicate QC Types UCL upper Control Limit, in % (except for LOSS, mg/Kg) Sample Value of the Sample of interest QC Sarttple Types DUP LCSS LCSW Sample Duplicate Laboratory Control Sample - Soil Laboratory Control Sample - Water MS/MSD PBS PBW Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Dupiicale Prep Blank - Soil Prep Blank - Water Blanks Control Samples Duplicates Matrix Spikes Verifies that there is no or minimal contamination in the prep method procedure. Verifies the accuracy of the method, including the prep procedure. Verifies the precision of the instrument andlor method. Determines sample matrix interferences, if any. ACZ Qualifiers (Qua1) H Analysis exceeded method hold time. illethod.PreRPa[ Reference 041,72,,i51111, M SM RP ESM EPA methodology, including those under SDWA, CWA, and RCRA Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. ASTM DOE DOE/ESM (1) Solid matrices are reported on a dry weight basis. (2) Preparation method: "Method" indicates preparation defined in analytical method. (3) QC results calculated from raw data. Results may vary slightly if the rounded values are used in the calculations. (4) An asterisk in the "XQ" column indicates there is an extended qualifier and/or certification qualifier associated with the result. For a complete list of ACZ`s Extended Qualifiers, please click: http:Ifwww.acz.comlpubliclextqua!Cist,pdf REPG03.09.12.01 123673-1504341628 Page 8 of 18 C N c C E 0 o a) 0 4E4 0 J N D ACZ Project ID: Resource Engineering, Inc. Gross Alpha WG382148 N N 0 rN- ✓ Ln 0) Q+ eq +a en N N r• 00 r^ vs 0 q M) e") CO N 0 0 NN 2 ▪ • z C.) a 0 0 0 )e) 6 1-7 O g g 2 12 su u� L • U 0 0 WG381916PBW WG381916LCSW L23692-02DUP L23701-02❑UP L23692-01 MS Radium 226 N 0 • V I P V 8c7 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 7 6 6 n r] o o 0 0 0 0 0 f) p ry 0 N G Rj 40 01 O O O O O O 6 o O N N CO N 0 0 6 an to ✓ r- z z O a D. 0 0 )q )0 .r w o m c) rn nt y� �y d o 0) o 0 LC cY w w a U o 0 M WG382202PBW WG382202LCSW L23892-02 D U P V 0 rn Radium 228 0) r IN - co N P 6NC) 00 i] [] ® 0 0 - M1 0 0 0 © 0 m r M v )0 0) r 0 0 )0 0) N 0 0 0 IT N w 0) [') O o o m r-) i rn 0 0 0 N VI m cco z z 0- a 0[) 6 N] 45 )e) F. 0) m w a) e e "1- 0 0) 0 O t' [L' w 0 0 • re > N d d a _j o 11 o WG382474PBW WG382474LCSW L23699-01 DU P L23896-01MS L23764 -O DUP L23673-1504301628 (600) 334-5493 C f4 0°3 Q ET) c`,• 1- .8 .8 . E � m J `f' ADZ 2773 Dpwnhllf Drive -J ACZ Project ID Resource Engineering, Inc. SM7500-RN Radon -222 O c 0 N N C ‘- t- "4" -- N 0 0 1 N 0 r N N 0 d O O 0 4 O RC 140401-18 WG381693PBW W3381693LCSW [23673-016 U P WG381693PBW L23673-1504301628 ADZ Laboratories, Inc. 2773 Downhill Drive Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 (800) 334-5493 Resource Engineering, Inc. RadChem Extended Qualifier Report ACZ Project ID. L23673 ACZ!D VIWQRKNUM FAR 1'ER 161E11 -10D QUAL CESCRIFTtON L23673-01 WG382806 Radium 226 WG382774 Radium 228 M903.1 DJ Sample dilution required due to insufficient sample. M903.1 M2 Matrix spike recovery was low, the recovery of the associated control sample (LCS or LFB) was acceptable. M904.0 DJ Sample dilution required due to insufficient sample. M904.0 M2 Matrix spike recovery was low. the recovery of the associated controlsample (LCS or LFB) was acceptable. REPAD,15.06.05.01 L23673-1504301628 Page 11 of 18 A Z Laboratories, Inc, 2773 Downhill Drive Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 {80O) 334-5493 Resource Engineering, Inc. Certification Qualifiers ACZ Project ID: L23673 Radiochemistry The following parameters are not offered for certification or are not covered by NELAC certificate #ACZ. Radon -222 Wet Chemistry SIA 7500-R N The following parameters arta not offered tar certtflraticrn or are not covered by NELAC certificate #ACZ Iron Related Bacteria HACH IRB -BART Slime Forming Bacteria HACH SLYM-BART Sulfate Reducing Bacteria HACH SRO -BART R EPAD.O5,06.45.01 L23673-1504301628 Page 12 of 18 ACZ Laboratories, Inc. 2773 Downhill Drive Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 (800) 334-5493 Resource Engineering, inc. 1325-17.1 Sample Receipt ACZ Project ID: L23673 Date Received: 04/08/2015 09:38 Received By: ddp Date Printed: 4/8/2015 Receipt Verification 1) Is a foreign soil permit included for applicable samples? 2) Is the Chain of Custody or other directive shipping papers present? 3) Does this project require special handling procedures such as CLP protocol? 4) Are any samples NRC licensable material? 5) if samples are received past hold time, proceed with requested short hold time analyses? 6) Is the Chain of Custody complete and accurate? 7) Were any changes made to the Chain of Custody prior to ACZ receiving the samples? YES NO NA X L 1x x x X Sampfes1Containers 8) Are all containers intact and with no leaks? 9) Are all labels on containers and are they intact and legible? 10) Do the sample labels and Chain of Custody match for Sample ID, Date, and Time? 11) For preserved bottle types, was the pH checked and within limits? 12) Is there sufficient sample volume to perform all requested worn? 13) Is the custody seal intact on all containers? 14) Are samples that require zero headspace acceptable? 15) Are all sample containers appropriate for analytical requirements? 16) Is there an Hg -1631 trip blank present? 17) Is there a VOA trip blank present? 18) Were all samples received within hold time? YES NO NA X X X I X X X Chain of Custody Related Remarks The 'Relinquished By' field on the COC was not completed. Left a message for Ryan McBride on 418/15, Client Contact Remarks Shipping Containers Cooler Id Temp (eC) 3290 3.7 Rad (}IR/Hr) 13 Custody Seal Intact? Yes Was ice present in the shipment container(s)? Yes - Wet ice was present in the shipment container(s). Client must contact an ACZ Project Manager if analysis should not proceed for samples received outside of their thermal preservation acceptance criteria. REPAD LPII 2012-03 L23673-1504301628 Page 13 of 18 ADZ Laboratories, Inc. 2773 Downhill Drive Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 (800) 334-5493 Resource Engineering, Inc. 1325-17.1 Sample Receipt ACZ Project ID: L23673 Date Received: 04/08/2015 09:38 Received By: ddp Date Printed: 4/8/2015 REPAD LPII 2012-03 L23673-1504301628 Page 14 of 18 / ftire li Lziew69113011,6243 White - Returniwith sample. YellowRetain for your records. Page 15 of 18 ACLaboratories, Inc. _3 6 7 3 CHAIN of CUSTODY 2778 Downhill Drive Steamboat Springs, GO 80487 (BOO) 334-5493 Report to: r ,ry Name: I li-�,�i•' f' Address: q 09' a E�:1'C�-d� 4 t Company: TM tsar`( f - en, a ePe/ .%sir ( vs. ea P1(0,01 ` E-mail: (g . I,' - s7 �• t3 TC rRa /'fit e arum Telephone: G ?0-.- q l - Li' h f Copy of Report to: l• Name: i!1 E-mail: Company: 1 t Telephone: Invoice to: Name: VA e i0-� art 1I, ff Address; Qf]q C8tQtiar_ of Company: i ejGt)fr e e- per, n!, L1+f 51 L'. PI 6 o t T E-mail: IAMoir(,•5 CD f ft2 (Cr-il;,(U.; Telephone: 9',6 r41 Lig— i')fir) If sample(s) received past holding time (HT), or if insufficient HT remains to complete YES I analysis before expiration, shall ACZ proceed'uvith requested short HT analyses? NO I1'No- Then ACZ will contact client for further In struck on. If neither 'YESf r� or"No- Is indicated, ACI will proceed with IP* requested analysis, even II 1IT Is aspired, and dale *,Il be quallfl.d Are samples for SDWA Compliance Monitoring? Yes No [ if yes, please include state forms. Results willlbe reported to PQL for Colorado. r Sampler's Name: (' Sampler's Site Information State Zip code 9 fl i Time Zon64't- J Ir r ,� 11_ !� 4111111M to MI authenticity and validity of this sample, I undsrr5nd that intentionally mielabeling the `Sampler's Signature: L[ �► tampering with the Sample in anyway, is considered fraud and punishable by Stab Lew. 11mentaai.locatIon or PROJECT INFORMATION Quote#: _(p,.rJ Do ANALYSES %.1 -- REQUESTED c (attach "sr or use quote number) cu Repotting state for compliance testing: - o 4 ] - + Check box if samples include NRC licensed material? w �- rV rex SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION • DATE:TIME .'Matrix f 3 CI x .4Jeiv well 41'ms CS I;4: 4s L.,/ L II Ili , I I I 1 Mari EMARKS 1 o SW (Surface Water) • GW (Ground Water) 4 4-1,-,< (,•15 '`Por Please refer to ACZ's RELINQUISHED BY: WW (Waste Water) - DW kf to- 0 terms & conditions located DATE:TIME (Drinking Ware ) SL (Sludge) SO (Soil) OL 10 n '* 141t-1 r GS Cas { ors the reverse side of this COC. RECEIVED BY: I) Ottie (Specify) DATE:TIME .I' Lziew69113011,6243 White - Returniwith sample. YellowRetain for your records. Page 15 of 18 -e:4 Laboratories, Inc. 2773 Downhill Drive Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 (800) 334-5493 Account: RESENG/Resource Engineering, Inc. Bottle Order: B033182 Bill to Account: Ship Date Requested: Request Placed at: Service Requested: Bottle {.Order z r� Packing Lust Bill to ACZ 0410112015 03/31/2015 16:40 UPS Ground Sampling supplies 1! i -actsGty4)? ACZ° o 9 iii . 1 COC 2 SEAL 1 RETURN 6 LABELS Chain of Custody Custody Seal Return Address Sample Labels Chain of Custody, 1 for 10 samples. Custody seals for cooler, two for each cooler Return Address label, one for each cooler. ACZ supplied labels for sample containers ACZ Coolers 1Z8101300375048248 Quote number: KW-GLENWOOD Sample Quantity: 1 aey,�ry� sseFifteilRawlPt 2 RED CUBE 4 L Raw/Nitric 1 RED PC 250 ML Red pre -cleaned Raw/Nitric {l RED RAD 1000 ML Raw/Nitric 3 VIAL UP 4D ML !taw One sample/ one time analyses- Radiochemistry. ACZ is responsible for necessary sample filtering Radiochemistry (total) - Da not overfill as .here is Nitric Acid in the bottle. Metals (total including ICPMS) - Do not overfill as thereis Nitric Acid in the bottle. Radiochemistry (total) - Do not overfill as there is Nitric Acid in the bottle. VOA & Radon - Do not overfill and make sure sample contains no bubbles. Prepared By/Date: SW L23673-1504301628 Page 1 of 2 Page 16 of 18 ®• AC Laboratories, 'Inc. 2773 Downhill Drive Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 (800) 334-5493 Account: RESENG/Resource Engineering, Inc. Bottle Order: B033222 Bottle:©rder = Bili to Account: Ship Date Requested: Request Placed at: Service Requested: Bill to ACZ 04103/2015 04103/2015 09:38 UPS Ground Sampling supplies 1 COC 2 SEAL 1 RETURN 1 LABELS Chain of Custody Custody Seal Return Address Sample Labels l� rt OSGfljltitirl iE_• sm.::4;,.4,10 •u Chain of Custody, 1 for 10 samples. Custodyseals for cooler, two for each cooler. Return Address label, one for each cooler. ACZ supplied labels for sample containers • ACZ Coolers 4381 Small *Weight;''r tr` ' *.:.gUPS Tracking Number 1Z8101300375048668 Quote number: BART -BACTERIA • Sample Quantity: 1 PACi(�",r�.Qtya:-.�ifYP.�;� •1%;���k CTH Erb ACZ is responsible for necessary sample filtering iz6 FilterlRawl ireserve lnstruct;Eons BART OTHER Prepared By/Date: !i sw L23673-1504301628 Page 1 of 2 Page 17 of 18 • ecial Instruction C 0 col to 4 tn D' Q V m C A o U "' en O ▪ N i-0 C13 Ict- w▪ U = 0 04 .. C o 0- .2 ? Q a v, CZ cb —.I cn>, w CO N 4 10o 0 0 c:.: - N r ▪ W CO • d d" L23673-1504301€28 Page 18 of 18 MEM tr1»1 MEM •1111 E N G I N E t= R I N G Memorandum To: Nicole Garrimone Campagna, Esq. From; Michael J. Erion, P.E. -+ CC: File: 1325-17.1 Date: May 26, 2015 Re: KW Glenwood Springs, LLC, Coliform Bacteria Testing Resource Engineering. Inc. 909 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970)-945-6777 Voice (970)-945-1137 Facsimile This memorandum addresses the coliform bacteria test for the new well drilled for the proposed KW Glenwood Springs, LLC project. The water sample taken March 3, 2015 tested negative for the presence of coliform bacteria. However, the sample did not get delivered overnight due to a snow storm. Therefore, the sample was analyzed outside the 30 hour hold time prescribed by the EPA testing protocol. The sample was maintained at a temperature below 10° C (500 F), which inhibits changes in the density of bacteria. The literature related to development of the testing protocol indicates that samples held longer than 30 hours could experience changes in density of bacteria (both increases and decreases), if bacteria is present. A negative result is not likely to occur if coliform bacteria is present, but is possible, In any event, the coliform bacteria test is most useful after the permanent well pump and pipeline has been installed and disinfected by a licensed well pump installer. #f coliform bacteria is subsequently determined to be present in the water source, disinfection treatment such as chlorine or UV would be incorporated into the potable water system. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. From the Desk of Michael J. Erion, P.E. Page 1 of 1 B&G BALCOMB & GTEEN,pc A FULL SERVICE LAW FIRM SINCE 1953 Via Hand Delivery Date: To: From: Re: Dear David: T R N S 1\4 3 'T T A. I- 1\4 M e m o r y rti d u rrt July 24, 2015 EXHIBIT Garfield County Community Development Department Thomas J. Flartert, I3alcomb & Green. P.C. / Attorneys for Eastbank, LLC Eastbank LLC (Parcel 2A) / RE -I School District (Parcel 1); Lot Line Adjustment Materials — Eastbank, LLC Minor Subdivision Application (pending) Enclosed are conformed copies (with recording data) of the Lot/Boundary Line Adjustment documents recorded with the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's Office yesterday: (1) Deed from RE -1 School District to Eastbank, LLC (and Trust co -tenant owners) of a portion of the District's Parcel 1 property: and (ii) Deed from Eastbank, LLC (and Trust co -tenant owners) of a portion of Eastbank"s Parcel 2A property: and (iii) Boundary Line Adjustment Affidavit with applicable legal descriptions (including parcel transfer properties, pre -and post -transfer descriptions) and Exhibit D (form of the Lot Line Adjustment map). The Clerk and Recorder is still processing recordation of the Lot Line Adjustment map (with all signatures and recording data) which I expect to pick up today and deliver to you in supplement to this transmittal. I believe this completes the information you require to proceed with completion of the pending Minor Subdivision application and adjunct materials (plat, etc.) with respect to the establishment of Lot I (future Fed Ex site), Lot 2 and Lot 3. Thank you, as always, for your efforts in these matters. Please feel free to contact Davis Farrar, Roger Neal or me with any questions, directions, or additional information requests. ENCLS: Mailing Address: P.O. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 www.ba lca mbgreen.com Glenwood Springs Office: Aspen Office: 818 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO (970) 945-6546 0133 Prospector Road, Ste, 4]02E Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 920-5467 FON kribf Recepti0,. . 865785 M O f2z;20r5 03 yl- % Fhb Jeal Plb -j..-. 1 r• r 2 R='; ST6 nr, r;9,. Pe..w rr QUIT CLAIM DEED CONFORMED COPY rc THIS DEED, treacle this r 3 ` day of July, 2017, between ROARING FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT, RE -1, a Colorado school district, whose legal address is 1405 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (`Grantor"), and I:ASTBAN°K. LLC, a Colorado limited liability company whose address is clo Dunrene Management, 710 E Durant Avenue Suite W-6, Aspen, CO 81611, the ELIZABETH MACGREGOR IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED DECEMBER 27, 2000, a Colorado trust whose address is c/o Dunrenti Management, 710 E Durant Avenue Suite W-6, Aspen, CO 81611, and the FLORA MACGREGOR IRREVOCABLE TRUST I)ATEI) DECEMBER 27, 2000, a Colorado trust w hose address is c/o Dunrene Manag.entent, 710 E Durant Avenue Suite W-6, Aspen, CO 81611 (together the "Grantee"). WITNESSETII, That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten and 00/1 O0ths Dollars (510.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has remised, released, sold, conveyed and Qvii CLAIMED. and by these presents does remise, release, sell, convey and Qt 'IT CLAI!.I unto the Grantee. their heirs, successors and assigns forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the Grantor has in and to the real property described as follows: See Exhibit A To HAVE \N1t To Ifol.D, the s,une, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging, or in anywise thereunto appertaining. and all the estate. right, title, interest and claire whatsoever, of the Grantor, either in lav or equity, to the only proper a>c, benefit and behoof of the Grantee. their heirs, successors and assigns forever. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, -, the Grantor has executed this deed on the date set forth above. SCHOOL DISTRICT: ROARING FORK SCH OL 1) `.'TRIC-. RE -1 sir4r ! STATE OF COLORADO) COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) By: Nance: Its: ,' ,6a7' The foregoing Easement Agreement Via, subscribed and sworn to before me this a3"e.)day of 4-� y . 201;, by , p4,N;e_� Iti ft - j �2c.st c• e>� of the Roaring Fork School bistrict, RE-I.oplit-ck WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Y11"t,Q, 1J 801-7 . [SEAL] SALLY GEIB VAGNEUR NOTARY PUBLIC STATE* OF COLORADO NOTARY ID #19874208029 My mIssi;;n Expires May I, 2017 Notarr)'ublic UPON RECORDING RETURN TO: Balcomb & Green, F.C. ATTN: Thomas J. Hartert P.O. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF TRANSFER PARCEL FROM SCHOOL DISTRICT TO EASTBANK ROARING FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO EASTB ANK, LLC A PARCEL °ELAND SMIATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 6 Sou-ni, RANGE 89 WEST OE THE 6111 PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING WITHIN PARCEL 1 OF THE EASTBANK LOT SPLIT RECORDED JUNE 30, 2009 AS RECEPTION NO. 770436 IN THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35, A STONE FOUND IN PLACE; IIIENCE S7501 '32"F. A DISTANCE OF 2495.65 FEET TO TIIE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S46- 10'38''W A DISTANCE, OF 416.69 FEET; THENCE N39. 14'19W A DISTANCE OF 30,88 FEET; THENCE ALONGME ARC OF A CURVE TO TIIE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 280.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13-4134, A DISTANCE OF 66.92 FEET (CHORD BEARS N32 '23'32"W A DISTANCE OF 66.76 FEET); THENCE N25'3245"W A DISTANCE OE 127.21 FEET; THENCE N63' 3353"E A DISTANCE OF 128.91 FEET; THENCE S7145'24E A DISTANCE OF 84.95 FEET; THENCE N73'43'41"E A DISTANCE OE 223.64 FEET TO THE PO/NT OE BEGINNING, CONTAINING 47,408 SQUARE FEET OR 1.088 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. TOGETHER WITH ANI) INCLUDING: A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 59 WEST OE THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING WITHIN PARCEL 1 OF THE EASTBANK LOT SPLIT RECORDED JUNE 30, 2009 AS RECEPTION NO. 770436 IN THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE ANI) BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT TELE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35, A STONE FOUND IN PLACE; THENCE S660628E A DISTANCE OF 2393.27 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 150.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09 3352", A DISTANCE OF 30.05 FEET (CHORD BEARS:N44' 01' I 5"W A DISTANCE OF 30.01 FEET); THENCE N39'14'I9"W A DISTANCE OF 60.78 FEET; THENCE S49 -5408"E A DISTANCE OF 92.01 FEET; THENCE S494207W A DISTANCE OF 14.53 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 748 SQUARE FEET OR 0.017 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 1111 'i��i�e�'� 4t �Ti1� i 17` �� �i� �f �'I�4�111F��i�� 11111 Reception#: 865786 37+2:3+2::'15 02-37 l0 PM .ea^ Glbe-leo cF A RQT, Fee $20 7r, Doc Fee 00 GARFIF rO COUNT/ CO QUIT CLAIM DEED CONFORMED COPY THIS DEED, made this ;3T day of July. 2015. between EASTBANK. LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. the ELIZABETH MAC'GREGOR IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED DECEMBER 27, 2000. a Colorado trust, and the FLORA MACGREGOR IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED DECEMBER 27. 2000, a Colorado trust (together the "Grantor"), and ROARING FORK RI -I SCHOOL DISTRICT. a Colorado school district, whose legal address is 1 105 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 (Grantee). "Et 'i SSE: FE I, That the Grantor. for and in consideration of the stun of Ten and 00/100ths Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration. the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has remised, released_ sold, conveyed and QUI -1 CE.,ur n'I}. and by these presents does remise, release, sell, convey and Quit CLAW unto the Grantee, its heirs, successors and assigns forever, all the right. title, interest, claim and demand Nrhich the Grantor has in and to the real property described as follows: Sec Exhibit A To HAti I' AND 10 IIoL , the same. together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging. or in anyw ise thereunto appertaining. and all the estate. right. title. interest and claim whatsoever, of the Grantor, either in law or equity, to the only proper use_ benefit and behoof of the Grantee, its heirs. successors and assigns forever. IN WWI INf:tiff WinthQF. the Grantor has executed this deed on the date set forth above. EASTBANK: EASTBANK. LLC, a Colorado limited liability company" 13v: 1. ENE MANAGEMENT. INC.. a Colorath co paration. Manager Bv: Name: Rol r. ± ncan Macgregor Its: Pre ident ELIZABETH MACGREGOR IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED DECEMBER 27, 2000. a C'oIorado trust By: Steve' . Marolt. Trustee Stev arolt. Trustee UPON RECORDING RETURN TO: f3alconib & Green. P.C. ATTN: Thomas J. l [artert P.O. Drawer 790 Clen',wood Springs, CO 81602 STATE OF y , -) ) )ss COUNTY OF() f ) FLORA MACGREGOR IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED DECEMBER 27. 2000, a Colorado tty- 't By: Steffi Marolt, Trustee Steve 1. '-,roit, Trustee On 1 , 2015, before me.ct7-Lys=-cuts . Notary Public in and for said county. persona ly appeared Robert Duncan Macgregor. as President of Dunrene Management, Inc.. the Manager of Eastham;. LEC, who has satisfactorily identified him/her/themselves as the si41ner or witness to the above -referenced document. AUDREY ELLIS NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO OTARY ID #20034024415 nIrnission Expires Jug; 23, 2019 My Commission Expires: Name cifrotary: STATE OF CO l,c'er-p ) ) COUNTY OF I' j� ) ss On 7 itiLY . 2015, before nte. tsl+;._ty iFNotary. Public in and for said county. personally appeared Steven M. Marolt. as Trustee for the Elizabeth Macgregor Irrevocable Trust Dated December 27. 2000 and the Flora Maearegor Irrevocable. Trost Dated December 27, 2000; who has satisfactorily identified him/her/themselves as the signer or witness to the above - referenced document. [SEAL] My Commission Expires: -7 c. -1_ • Name of Notary: A -L-t V V 6 -t -L -CS AUDREY ELLIS NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO ARv ID #20034024415 rn-i.ss,•c7 Expires July 23, 2019 EXFIIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF TRANSFER PARCEL FROM EASTBANK TO SCHOOL DISTRICT EASTBANK, LLC TO ROARING FORK RE -1 SCHOOL DISTRICT A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING WITHIN PARCEL 2A OF THE EASTBANK PARCEL 2 LOT SPLIT RECORDED JANUARY 18, 2012 AS RECEPTION NO. 813402 IN THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35, A STONE FOUND IN PLACE; THENCE S78I0'46"E A DISTANCE OF 2558.02 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S56' 2025"E A DISTANCE OF 227.36 FEET; THENCE S4059'49"E A DISTANCE OF 157.49 FEET; THENCE S4900' 11"W A DISTANCE OF 20.20 FEET; THENCE S6239'48"W A DISTANCE OF 37.96 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 125.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 38'0457, A DISTANCE OF 83.08 FEET (CHORD BEARS S81 4217W A DISTANCE OF 81.56 FEET); THENCE N79'1514" W A DISTANCE, OF 29.84 FEET; THENCE N14'58'36"W A DISTANCE OF 142.89 FEET; THENCE N5737'23W A DISTANCE OF 149.86 FEET; THENCE S73'43'4I"W A DISTANCE OF 54.23 FEET; THENCE N46c1038E A DISTANCE OF 113.63 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 34,625 SQUARE FEET OR 0.795 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. TOGETHER WITH: A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF TfIE 6T11 PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING WITHIN PARCEL 2A OF THE EASTBANK PARCEL 2 LOT SPLIT RECORDED JANUARY IS, 2012 AS RECEPTION NO. 813402 IN THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35, A STONE FOUND IN PLACE; THENCE S6635'44F. A DISTANCE OF 2565.48 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S58:17'21"W A DISTANCE OF 139.08 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 267.79 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28'4144, A DISTANCE OF 134.12 FEET (CHORD BEARS N60 -2 I '04'''W A DISTANCE OF 132.72 FEET); THENCE N4942'07"E A DISTANCE OF 88.44 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO TIIE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 180.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3554'14", A DISTANCE OF 112.80 FEET (CHORD BEARS S66451 SE A DISTANCE OF 110.96 FEET); THENCE S84'42'25"E A DISTANCE OF 64.53 FEET TO THE POINT 01:BEGINNING, CONTAINING 13,518 SQUARE FEET OR 0.310 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. TOGETHER WITH: A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING WITHIN PARCEL 2A OF THE EASTBANK PARCEL 2 LOT SPLIT RECORDED JANUARY 18, 2012 AS RECEPTION NO. 813402 IN THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT Tflf: 11'ES1 Q' AR EI; CORNER OE SAID SECTION 35, A STONE FOUND IN PLACE; THENCE S67° 12'37"E A DISTANCE OF 2300.78 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S39 14'19"F A DISTANCE OF 12.20 FEET; THENCE N449 4'0.9"W A DISTANCE OF 12.23 FEET; THENCE N46°11138"E A DISTANCE OF 2.27 FEET TO TIIE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 14 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. Eli ri*a 1tr iVa 1 iN FAlAT IVeRW PIA11111.411111 Reception#: 865784 0: /23'27'.5 03 37:1Q PM Jed," Plea=.rlo 1 Q r 14 P Fay $91 X Doc: Fee 0 Gel GARFIELD ;o nary co CONFORMED COPY BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT AFFIDAVIT Th„ ural/,.,tgnl:(1atfrant. first 6.11) .�. ,', gal i«ri 11 d._poseiii i...l .,ti.li� a, follows: 1. EASTBANK" LLC. a Colorado limited liability company, the ELIZABETH MACGREGOR IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED DECEMBER 27, 2000, a Colorado trust, and the FLORA MACGREGOR IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED DECEMBER 27, 2000, a Colorado trust (collectively, "Eastbank") are the owners of that certain real property situated iri the unincorporated area of Garfield County, Colorado, described in Exhibit :1-I ("Eastbank Property"). The ROARING FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT, RE -1 (the "School District") is the owner of that certain real property situated in the unincorporated area of Garfield County, Colorado described in Exhibit A-2 (-School Property"). 2 Eastbartk and the School District are desirous of adjusting the boundary lines of their respective parcels and have attached in Exhibits 13-1 and 13-2 the "Metes and Bounds" description of the area being adjusted. Exhibit 13-1 describes the area which will be conveyed to Easthank and will be. merged into the Easthank Property. Exhibit 13-2 describes the area which will he conveyed to the School District and merged into the School Property. Attached as Exhibit C-1 is the resulting new legal description owned by Fastbank. Attached as Exhibit C-2 is the resulting new legal description for the property owned by the School District. 'We sign this Affidavit in accordance with the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. Attached as Exhibit D is a letter of explanation for this boundary line adjustment. Attached as Exhibit E is a Boundary Line Adjustment Plat depicting this boundary line adjustment. 3. 'We hereby represent that rio new parcels will he created and, therefore, that Garfield County will not he required to issue any building permits, other than what it would be required to issue for the alreadv existing parcels. 4. We hereby represent that none of the parcels involved in this boundary line adjustment are part of a previously platted subdivision of record. 5. We hereby represent that the boundary line adjustment made reference to herein will not cause the loss of access by road or to utilities, to any parcel involved. 6. We hereby represent that the boundary lineadjustment being made will not result. in any of the parcels involved being less than the minimum lot size in the applicable zone district allowed as a result of the boundary line adjustment or create any non -conforming setbacks for any existing structures, 7. We hereby represent that no parcel of land created as a state -exempt 35 acre or greater lot (pursuant to C.R.S. § 30-28-10I(10)(h) or (I0)(c)(I)) will be reduced to less than 35 acres. S. We hereby represent that a copy of this Affidavit will he recorded with the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder. FURTHER AFFIANTS SAYETH NOT. Done as of the _a3r day of July, 2015. UPON RECORDING RETURN TO: t3alccanth & Green, P.C. ATTN: Thomas J. l lartert P.O. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs. CO 81602 EASTBANK: STATE OF L,ii `J..-0 a ) ) ss COUNTY OF P1;fr: t<i ) EASTBANK. LLC, a Colorado limited liability company Bv: JNRINE MANAGEMENT, INC.. a Col : o corporation.. Man er By: 4 i Nam e. .bc )unc m'Macgregor Its: I resident ELIZABETH MACGREGOR IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED IDECEMBER 27. 2000. a Colorado tjist By: Stet' Iv1, 1, 7arolt. Trustee Marolt Trustee FLORA MACGREGOR IRREVOCABLE TRIIST DATED DECEMBER 27, 2000. a Colorado trust By: Stev M. Marolt, Trustee 1arolt, Trustee O i tr�c 2015. before me. c..t i)1'•,y l�-,LL.,‘ Notary Public in and for said county. personally appeared Robert Duncan Macgregor, as President of Dunrene Management, Inc.. the Maaiayer of Easihanlc. L1...C'. who has satisfactorily identified him/her/themselves as the signer or witness to the above -referenced document. AUDREY ELLIS NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO 1QTARY ID #20034024415 Al d n3ission Expires July 23, 2010 My Commission Expires: - Name of I fiary: t1?/' L + t -c^ is STATE OF to,/24 17 +? ) ) ss COUNTY OF , ) On 3 ik 2015, before me. t,tt ,�, Notary y Public in and for said - ) y L--(..LA l`i?t } county. personally appeared Steven M. I'rarolt. as Trustee for the Elizabeth Macgregor Irrevocable Trust Dated December 27. 2000 and the Flora Macgregor Irrevocable Trust Dated December 27, 2000, who has satisfactorily identified him. heritherselyes as the signer or witness to the above-referenced document. [SEAL] kr) a3t3e of No l y:t - „t0/7. My Commission Expires: i/ J f lel, AUDREY ELLS NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY iD #200340244 a r Expires Ju'.y 23, 2010 [ SCHOOL DISTRICT: ROARING FO S '1 ! L DIS'T RE -1 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD By: Its: The forei oing Easement Agreement was subscribed and sworn to before me this a3 da)' of ul, 2015_ by raiii 1-`�— ' bPFRC, {Z GrartEL of the Roaring Fork School District. RE -1. [SEAL] 'WITNESS my band and official seal. My commission expires: SALLY GEIB VAGNEUR NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID #19374208029 Myscr, Exp,res May S, 2017 j G4tlyick 'otar • Public EXHIBIT A-1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF EASTBANK PROPERTY PRIOR TO BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT EASTBANK, LLC PARCEL PARCEL 2A OF THE EASTBANK PARCEL 2 LOT SPLIT RECORDED JANUARY 18. 2012 AS RECEPTION NO. 813402 IN THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE AND BEING FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL. MERIDIAN, I..YING NORTHERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER AND SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND COLORADO STATE IIIGFFWAY 82 RIGHT-OF-WAY. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RICiIIT-OF-WAY OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82. A REBAR AND CAP FOUND IN PLACE. (WIIENCE TI -IE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35, BEING A 3 1/4" ALUMINUM CAP. BEARS S37'44'52"E A DISTANCE OF 2075.65 FEET): THENCE DEPARTING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S3 3 '1=1'47"ll' A DISTANCE OF 381.32 FEET TO A POINT IN TETE CENTERLINE OF TIIE ROARING FORK RIVER: THENCE TIIE FOLLOWING TIIREE (3) COURSES ALONG SAID CENTIRLINE OF TIIE. ROARING FORK RIVER: I. N72'34'38" W A DISTANCE OF 806.63 FEET: 2. S87'46122"W A DISTANCE OF 351.38 FEET; 3. S35' 12':22"1.4' A DISTANCE GE 170.00 FEET: THENCE DEPARTING SAID CENTERLINE RLINE N04'47'38"W A DISTANCE OF 125.00 FEET: TI IENCE S77"03'06"W A DISTANCE OF 249.82 FEET; "1 I IENC1: S53 45'59"W A DISTANCE OF 39.00 FEET; THENCE S00'00'O0"E A DISTANCE OF 22.42 FEET: TIEENCE 571'38'40"W A DISTANCE OF 82.76 FEET; THENCE: ALONG A TANGENT CURVE T() THE LEFT IIAVINCI A RADIUS OF 745.00 FEEL'. A CENTRAL, ANGLE OF 14-25'06", A DISTANCE OF 187.48 FEET (CHORDS BEARS S64°26'07"W A DISTANCE OF 186.98 FEET); THENCE NCE S57 -13'34"W A DISTANCE OFF 178.94 FEEL': THENCE 578°47'49"W A DISTANCE OF 226.84 FEET: THENCE N76=50'20'W A DISTANCE OF 398.56 FEET: THENCE ALONG A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGIIT 11AVING A RADIUS OF 1517.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07.17'55", A DISTANCE OF 193.24 FEET (CHORD BEARS N05"46'21 "W A DISTANCE OF 193.11 FEET); THENCE NO2'07'30"W A DISTANCES OF 93.94 FEET: THENCE N06c5 3'56"W A DISTANCE OF 199.65 FEET: THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO TIIE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 636.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08'35'56" (CHORD BEARS N12'10122" W A DISTANCE: OF 95.36 FEET): THENCE N 16°28'12"W A DISTANCE OF 90.17 FEET: TIIENC'E ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET. A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20'08'57", A DISTANCE OF 105.50 FEET (CHORD BEARS N24'44'53"W A DISTANCE OF 104.96 FEET): THENCE N07'31'07"WA DISTANCE OF 197.63 FEET: THENCE N48°20'56"E A DISTANCE OF 78.22 FEET; THENCE N27'54'09"E A DISTANCE OF 156.25 FEET: THENCE N00'54'54"W A DISTANCE OF 126.04 FEET; THENCE N20°21'21 "E A DISTANCE OF 133.39 FEET: THENCE N13'30'20"E A DISTANCE OF 86.17 FEET: THENCE N49X27'26"E A DISTANCE OF 184.75 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY S00'07'44"F. A DISTANCE OF 647.26 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 650.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 130'10'09". A DISTANCE OF 1476.72 FEET. (CHORD BEARS S65°12'49"E A DISTANCE OF 1179,01 FEET); THENCE N49°42'07"E A DISTANCE OF 278.53 FEET: THENCE N49'54'08"W A DISTANCE OF 104.24 FEET; THENCE N46'10'38"E A DISTANCE OF 532.58 FEET TO A ON POINT THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY;. THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGH -IT -OF -WAY S56'2025"E A DISTANCE OF 227.36 FEET 5 TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF COLORADO STATE IIIGHWAY 82: THENCE THE FOLLOWING SIX (6) COURSES ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82: I. S405949E A DISTANCE OF 230.22 FEET; 2. S47=0631"E A DISTANCE OF 304.80 FEET: 3. S51' i 3'28"E A DISTANCE OF 111.93 FEET: 4. S544149"E A DISTANCE OF 186.78 FEET: 5. S560259E A DISTANCE OF 181.61 FEET: 6. S57°1324E A DISTANCE OF 90.41 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINING 33.200 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 6 EXHIBIT A-2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY PRIOR TO BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT ROARING FORK RE -I SCHOOL DISTRICT PARCEL 1 OF THE EASTI3ANK LOT SPLIT RECORDED JUNE 30, 2009 AS RECEPTION NO. 770436 IN THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE AND BEING FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTH IIALF OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE 6TEI PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. LYING NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF T}IE ROARING FORK RIVER AND SOUTIIWESTERLY OF THE ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82 RIGHT-OF-WAY. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAIL) SECTION 35, A STONE FOUND IN PLACE; THENCE N89'54'27"E ALONG THE NORTI1ERLY BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID SECTION 35 A DISTANCE O1= 914.98 FEET TO TIIE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE; CONTINUING N89°5427"E ALONG SAID NOR 1 I•IERLY BOUNDARY A DISTANCE OF 1013.14 FEET TO A POINT ON TI -IE SOUTi IWESTERLY RIGA IT -OF -WAY OF THE ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY: TT IENCE ALONG SAID SOUTI IWE STERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE ARC OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT IJAVING A RADIUS OF 1960.08 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20'07'31", A DISTANCE OF 688.48 FEET (CI AORD BEARS S46°16'40"E,E, A DISTANCE OF 684.94 FELT): 'I I IENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGI IT' -OF -WAY S56°20'25"E A DISTANCE OF 9690 FEET: THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RICHIT-OF-WAYS46°10'38"W A DISTANCE OF 532.58 FEET: TIIENCE S49'54'08"E A DISTANCE OF 104.24 FEET: THENCE S49'42'07"W A DISTANCE OF 278.53 FEET; TIIENCE ALONG TIIE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT IIAVING A RADIUS OF 65000 FEET, A CENTRAI. ANGLE OF 130'1 0"09". A DISTANCE OF 1476.72 FEET, (CI IORC) BEARS N65°13'49'"W A I)ISTANC'E OF 1179.01 FEE -1): THENCE NOO'07'44"W A DISTANCE OF 647.26 FEET TO TETE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEI, CONTAINING 35.100 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 7 EXHIBIT B-1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF TRANSFER PARCEL FROM SCHOOL DISTRICT TO EASTBANIK ROARING FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO EASTBANK. LLC A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH_ RANGE 89 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. LYING 'WITHIN PARCEL. 1 OF THE EASTBANK LOT SPLIT RECORDED JUNE 30, 2009 AS RECEPTION NO. 770436 IN THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35, A STONE FOUND IN PLACE; THENCE S76°01'32"1 A DISTANCE OF 2495.66 FEET TO If IF POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S46° I0'38"W A DISTANCE OF 416.69 FEET; THENCE N39' ] 4'19"W A DISTANCE OF 30.88 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE T°O T LIE RIGHT HAVINC7 A RADIUS OF 280.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13'41'34", A DISTANCE OF 66.92 FEET (CHORD BEARS N32°23'32"W A DISTANCE OF 66.76 FEET); THENCE' 1\125°32'45"W A DISTANCE OF 127.21 FEET: THENCE N63`3 3'53"E A DISTANCE OF 128.91 FEET; THENCE S71 °45'24"E A DISTANCE OF 84.95 FEET; THENCE N73°43'41"E A DISTANCE OF 223.64 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 47.408 SQUARE FEET OR 1.088 ACRES. MORE OR LESS. TOGETHER WITH AND INCLUDING: A PARCEL, OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUIT-T RANGE 89 WEST OF DIE 6TT! PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING WITHIN PARCEL 1 OF THE EASTBANK LOT SPLIT RECORDED JUNE 30, 2009 AS RECEPTION NO. 770436 IN TI II GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFT 1C'E AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT TILE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35, A STONE FOUND IN PLACE: THENCE S66°06'28"E A DISTANCE 01' 2393.27 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG 'HIE ARC OFA CURVE TO F!IE RIG/IT IIAVING A RADIUS OF 180.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL, ANGLE OF 09°33'52", A DISTANCE OF 30.05 FEET (CHORD I3I ARS:N44°01'15"W A. DISTANCE OF 30.01 FEET); THENCE N39°14'19"W A DISTANCE OF 60.78 FEET; THENCE S49°54'08"E A DISTANCE OF 92.01 FEET: THENCE S49°'42'07''W A DISTANCE OF 14.53 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 748 SQUARE FEET OR 0.017 ACRES. MORE OR LESS. It is the intent of the parties that the above-described parcel be merged with the tract of land described in Exhibit A-1. 8 EXHIBIT B-2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF TRANSFER PARCEL FROM EASTBANK TO SCHOOL DISTRICT EASTBANK, LLC TO ROARING FORK RE -1 SCHOOL DISTRICT A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 35. TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING WITHIN PARCEL 2A OF THE EASTBANK PARCEL 2 LOT SPLIT RECORDED JANUARY 18. 2012 AS RECEPTION NO. 813402 IN THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT TIIE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35. A STONE FOUND IN PLACE; THENCE S78°1046"E A DISTANCE OF 2558.02 FEET TO TIIE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE S56°2025E A DISTANCE OF 22 736 FEET; THENCE S4059'49E A DISTANCE OF 157.49 FEET; THENCE S490011"W A DISTANCE OF 20.20 FEET; THENCE S62°39'48"W A DISTANCE OF 37.96 FEET; THENCE ALONG TIIE ARC OF A CURVE TO TI IE RIGHT I IAVING A RADIUS OF 125.00 FEET AND A CENTRAI, ANGLE OF 38°04'57", A DISTANCE OF 83.08 FEET (CHORD BEARS S81'421 7"W A DISTANCE OF 81.56 HMI): THENCE N79°15`14"W A DISTANCE OF 29.84 FEET; THENCE NI 4°5836"W A DISTANCE OF 142.89 FEET: THENCE N57°3723"W A DISTANCE OF 149.86 FEET; TIIENCE S73°43'4I"W A DISTANCE OF 54.23 FEET; TIIENCE N46° I 0'38"E A DISTANCE OF 113.63 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 34.625 SQUARE FEET OR 0.795 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. TOGETI1ER A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN TIIE SOUTI I IIALF OF SECTION 35. TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH. RANGE 89 WEST OF T1 IE 6T11 PRINCIPAL ME.RIDIAN, LYING WITHIN PARCEL 2A OF TIIE EASTI3ANK PARCEL 2 LOT SPLIT RECORDED JANUARY 18. 2012 AS RECEPTION NO, 813402 IN 'VHF GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE AND BEING MORE. PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT TIIE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35, A STONE FOUND IN PLACE; THENCE S66°35414E A DISTANCE OF 2565.48 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING THENCE S58°172UW A DISTANCE OF 139.08 FEET: TIIENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 267.79 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28°41'44", A DISTANCE OF 134.12 FEET (CHORD BEARS N60°21'04"W A DISTANCE OF 132.72 FEET); THENCE N49°42'07'E A DISTANCE OF 88.44 FEET: THENCE ALONG TIIE ARC OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 180.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 35'54'14", A DISTANCE OF 112.80 FEET (CHORD BEARS S66°45118"E A DISTANCE OF 110.96 FEET); THENCE S84°4225E A DISTANCE OF 64.53 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 13.518 SQUARE FEET OR 0.310 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. TOGETHER WITH: A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING WITHIN PARCEL 2A OF THE EASTBANK PARCEL 2 LOT SPLIT RECORDED JANUARY 18, 2012 AS RECEPTION NO. 813402 IN THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 9 COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35, A STONE FOUND 1N PLACE: THENCE S67° 12'37"E A DISTANCE OF 2300.78 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE S39° 14' 19"E A DISTANCE OF 12.20 FEET; THENCE N49'54'08"W A DISTANCE OF 12.23 FEET; THENCE N46°1038"E A DISTANCE OF 2.27 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 14 SQUARE FEET_ MORE OR LESS. It is the intent of the parties that the above-described parcel be merged Nvith the tract of land described in Exhibit A-2. 10 EXHIBIT C-1 EAST BANK RESULTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION RESULTING EASTI3ANK, LLC PARCEL A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING NORTI IERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER AND SOUTI!WESTERLY OF TIIE ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82 RIGHT-OF-WAY, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIf3ED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGI IT -OF -WAY OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82, A REBAR AND CAP FOUND IN PLACE. (WIIENCI:. THF, SOUTT!EAS1 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35, BEING A 3 114" ALUMINUM CAP, BEARS S37444'52"E A DISTANCE OF 2075.65 FEET): THENCE DEPARTING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY THENCE S33°14'47"W A DISTANCE OF 381.32 FEET TO A POINT IN THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER; THENCE THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES ALONG SAID C'ENT'ERLINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER: 1.N72°34'38"W A DISTANCE OF 806.63 FEET; 2. S87°4622"W A DISTANCE OF 351.38 FEET: 3. 585°12'22"W A DISTANCE OF 170.00 FEET: TIIENCE DEPARTING SAID CENTERLINE N04°47'38"W A DISTANCE OF 125.00 FEET; TIIENCE S77'03'06"1V A DISTANCE OF 249.82 FEET: THENCE S53'45'59"W A DISTANCE OF 39.00 FEET : '1] IENCE S00°00'00''1: A DISTANCE OF 22.42 FEET; Ti IENCE 571 °,8'40"W A DISTANCE OF 82.76 FEET; TIIENCE ALONG THE ARC' OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT I LAVING A RADIUS OF 745.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL. ANGLE OF 14°25'06", A DISTANCE OF 187.48 FEET (CI IORD BEARS S64c2.6'07"w A DISTANCE OF 186.98 FEET): TIIENCE S57°]3134"W A DISTANCE OF 178.94 FEET; THENCE S78°4749"W A DISTANCE OF 226.84 FEET: TIIENCE N76`50'20"W A DISTANCE OF 398.56 FEET: THENCE ALONG -11 I1: ARC OF A NON -TANGENT CURVI TO TILE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1.517.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07°17'55" A DISTANCE OF 193.24 FEET (CHORD BEARS N05°46'21 "W A DISTANCE OF 193.11 FEET); THENCE NO2°07'30"W A DISTANCE OF 93.94 FEET: THENCE N0G°53'56"W A DISTANCE OF 199.65 FEET: TIIENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT T HAVING A RADIUS OF 636.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08°35'56". A DISTANCE OF 95.45 FEET (CHORD BEARS N12°10'23"W A DISTANCE OF 95.36 FEET); TIIENCE N16°28'12"W A DISTANCE OF 90.17 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20°08'57", A DISTANCE OF 105.50 FEET (CHORD BEARS N24°44'53 "W A DISTANCE OF 104.96 FEET): THENCE N07°31'07"W A DISTANCE OF 197.63 FEET; THENCE N48°20'56"E A DISTANCE OF 78.22 FEET; THENCE N27°54'09"E A DISTANCE OF 156.25 FEET; TIIENCE N00'54'54"W A DISTANCE OF 126.04 FEET; THENCE N20'2 !'7 ] "E A DISTANCE OF 133.39 FEET; THENCE N13°3020"E A DISTANCE OF 86.17 FEET; THENCE N49°2726"E A DISTANCE OF 184.75 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY ; THENCE S00°07'44"E A DISTANCE OF 647.26 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 650.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 130°10'09", A DISTANCE OF 1.476.72 FEET (CHORD BEARS S65°12'49"E A DISTANCE OF 11 L 179.01 FEET); THENCE N49'42"07"}; A DISTANC'E OF 175.57 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HEAVING A RADIUS OF 267.79 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28°41'44''. h I)ISTANC'E OF 134.12 F'FET (CHORD BEARS S60'2i'04"E A DISTANCE OF 132.72 FEET); THENCE N58°17'21"E A DISTANCE OF 139.08 FEET; THENCE N84°4225 "w A DISTANCE OF 64.53 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO TI IE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 180.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45°28"06", A DISTANCE OF 142.84 FEET (CHORD BEARS N6] °5822"W A DISTANCE OF 139.12 FEET); THENCE N39°]4'I9"W A DISTANCE OF 103.87 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 280.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF I3°41'34", A DISTANCE OF 66.92 FEET (CHORD BEARS N32°23'32"W A DISTANCE OF 66.76 FEET); THENCE N25° 32'45"W A DISTANCE OF 127.21 FEET; THENCE N63°33'53"E A DISTANCE OF 128.9I FEET; THENCE S71 "4524"E A DISTANCE OF 84.95 FEET; THENCE N73°43'41 "F" A DISTANCE OF 277.87 FEET; THENCE 557°37123"E A DISTANCE OF 149.86 FEET; THENCE S 14°58'36"E A DISTANCE OF 142.89 FEET: THENCE S 79'I5'14"E A DISTANCE OF 29.84 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO T1IE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 125.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 38'04'57", A DISTANCE OF 83.08 FEET (CHORD BEARS N81°42'1 7"E A DISTANCE OF 81.56 FEET); TTENC1j N62.°39'48"E A DISTANCE OF 37.96 FEET; THENCE N49'00"1 1"E A DISTANCE OF 20.20 FEET TO A POINT ON TI IE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF COLORADO STATE HIGIIWAY 82; THENCE TETE FOLLOWING SIX (6) COURSES ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF C`OLORADC) STATE HIGHWAY IWVAY 82: 1. S40'59'49"E A DIST'ANC'E OF 72.73 FEET; 2. S47'06'3I"E A DISTANCE OF 304.80 FEET; 3. S51°1328"E A DISTANCE OF 1 1 1.9.3 FEET; 4. S54°41'491E A DISTANCE OF 186.78 FEET; 5. S56°02"59"E A DISTANCE OF 181.61 FEET 6. S57° 13'24"E A DISTANCE OF 90.41 FEET TO 'TIE; POINT OF BEGINNING.. SAID PARCEI, OF LAND CONTAINING 38.200 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 12 EXHIBIT C-2 SCHOOL DISTRICT RESULTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION RESULTING ROARING FORK RE -I SCHOOL DISTRICT PARCEL PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 35. TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE 6TI1 PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER AND SOUTI 'WESTERLY OF THE ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82 RIGHT-OF-WAY. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35. A STONE FOUND IN PLACE; THENCE N8954'27"E ALONG THE NORTIJERLY BOUNDARY OF TT IE SOUTH HALF OF SAID SECTFON 35 A DISTANCE OF 914.98 FEET TO TI IE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE CONTINUING N89541.27E A DISTANCE OF L013.14 FEET TO A PONT ON TIIE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY: TIIENCE ALONG SAID SOUTI 'WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE ARC OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,960.08 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 200731", A DISTANCE OF 688.48 FEET (CHORD BEARS S46°1640"E A DISTANCE OF 684.94 FEET); TIIENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTIIWESTERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY S56`2025E A DISTANCE OF 324.26 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY R1GHT-OF-WAY OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82: TITENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT -OE -WAY S40.5949"E A DISTANCE OF 157.49 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY S49001 1'W A DISTANCE OF 20.20 FEET: THENCE S62'39'48W A DISTANCEOI: 37.96 FEET; TIIENCE ALONG THE ARC' OFA CURVE TO THE RIGHT I IAVING A RADIUS OF 125.00 FEFF AND A C'ENTRAL ANGLE OF 3804'57", A DISTANCE OF 83.08 FEET (CHORD BEARS S81°42'I7"W A DISTANCE OF 81.56 HEY); TFIENCE N791514W A DISTANCE OF 29.84 FEET: TI JENCE N14'5836W A DISTANCE OF 142.89 FEET; THENCE N573723"W A DISTANCE OF 149.86 FEET; 1 IENCE S73434 1"W A INSTANCE OF 277.87 FEET: TIIENCE N7104524W A DISTANCE OF 84.95 FEET; TIIENCE S6393'53"W A DISTANCE OF 128.91 FEET; THENCE S25°3245"E A DISTANCE OF 127.21 FEET: THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 280.00 FEEF AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°4 P34". A DISTANCE OF 66.92 FEET (CHORD BEARS S32°23"32E A DISTANCE OF 66.76 FEET): TIIENCE S3914119"E A DISTANCE OF 103.87 FEET: THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT I IA VING A RADIUS OF 180.00 FEET AND A • CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45°28'06", A DISTANCE OF 142.84 FEET (CHORD BEARS S61'5822"E A DISTANCE OF 139.12 FEET): THENCE S84'4225E A DISTANCE OF 64.53 FEET: THENCE S58°1721"W A DISTANCE OF 139.08 FEET: 'FFIENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 267.79 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28'4144". A DISTANCE OF 134.12 FEET (CHORD BEARS N60°21104W A DISTANCE OF 132.72 FEET); THENCE S49°42107"W A DISTANCE OF 175.57 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 650.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 130°10'09", A DISTANCE OF 1,476.72 FEET (CHORD BEARS N65°12.48"W A DISTANCE OF 1,179.01 FEET); THENCE N00a07`44"W A DISTANCE OF 647.26 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING_ SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 35.100 ACRES. MORE OR LESS. 13 41MANN tr�s frleWiV v. -s WOCCISMISCIWAWAM siari ni MOO sw-■nss►r WKIPONG1Y MIMI CC *11.1441900.1.1110 401 AM 7111.24W Were L111. 3N1AayJ•NflO3 ROM 1N3 rusnrav Nfl J.01 Dl l NNY9j,$y3 OOYaO10.7 AIpy1ODa1JidE(yO >INVELISr3 PREEN , ..:a EEEEE EL E EL EE IIREEEREENE EIEE 1:11 E ElEil �eQ�P�++�yy� •- iig 1p1 - s!;i D 0:114 . :11 4.1 i.o g rg 2 'p-ppp jif`� !Mill illiiiilii !Mil i zNINO ill �y+ rL k ELLLL G [[ pFpFiiifti 4 E[111�. EIr i" 8 I. 58 3 2' .4q H7Ny'y WH9iid EXHIBIT 28 Garfield County To: Frank Harrington - High Country Engineering From: Scott Aibner — Garfield County Surveyor Subject: Plat Review — Eastbank, LLC Minor Subdivision Date: 07/22/2015 Clear Frank, SURVEYOR SCOTT AIBNER, P.L.S Upon review of the Eastbank, LLC Minor Subdivision Plat, 1 have no comments or corrections to be made prior to approval for survey content and form. Once all final comments from Community Development have been completed, the Mylar may be prepared for recording. The Mylar shall be delivered to the Community Development office with all private party signatures no later than Monday the week prior to the next commissioner meeting day in order to make that meeting. Sincerely, Scott Aibner Garfield County Surveyor cc David Pesnichak — Community Development Department 109 8 th Street ,Suite 100B Glenwood Springs, C081601 • (970)945-1377 • Fax: (970)384-3460 • eanail:saiker@garfield-c©un ycom