Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 08.18.20089n Wireless Facility -Glenwood Commercial, LLC} ,I Mail Receipts ,of of Publication Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended Staff Report E Application F �S�taffRevort b Fred Jarman, for 1/07/2008 BOCC meetiG se Permit and Resolution of Approval 2008-11 REQUEST APPLICANT 1 OWNER LOCATION WATER/SEWER EXISTING ZONING ADJACENT ZONING PARCEL NO. BOCC 08/98/2008 CR Special Use Permit to allow a "Communication Facility" Glenwood Commercial -David Hicks 2550 Highway 82 NIA Commercial General Commercial General 218522300015 I. REQUEST The Board of County Commissioners approved a request to allow a "Communication Facility" on a property located south of Glenwood Springs, CO on ,January 7t", 2008. The approval was memorialized in Resolution 2008-11. A condition of approval required that the proposed antennas located on the east end of the proposed commercial structure be reduced from four (4) to two (2) and enclosed within a roof top cupola. Glenwood Commercial, LLC has reapplied to the Board of County Commission to amend the approval to allow the enclosure of the antennas approved on the west end of the structure within a cupola as required in the previous approval (Resolution 2008-11) on the east end. The addition of one (1) cupola is the only change represented. Staff recommends that the Board approve this request incorporating the original conditions of approval. EXHIBIT BOCC 01/07/2008 FJ REQUEST Special Use Permit to allow a "Communication Facility" APPLICANT 1 OWNER Verizon Wireless/David Hicks LOCATION 2550 Highway 82 WATERISEWER NIA EXISTING ZONING Commercial General ADJACENT ZONING Commercial General PARCEL NO. 218522300015 1. REQUEST Verizon Wireless requests that the Board of County Commissioners (the BOCC) approve a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow a "Communications Facility" on a property located on 2550 Highway 82. The Applicant proposes to build a new communications facility for voice and data transfer and will be built on the roof of the 4th building away from the highway. Glenwood Royal Mini Commercial LLC Storage L �p +osrrva er yr rte. Colorado 4 t �, a '�`�• �.� West Upholstery stir ISO �„ rOYl vly � a� �O Roaring Fork + Plumbing and / * `�'`�—.� •� Heating �, BOCC 0110712008 FJ II. PROJECT INFORMATION The proposed facility will be the furthest from the road of the four (4) buildings. (The subject building is in the construction process). The wireless facility will have 3 primary components: the antennas, equipment to support the antennas, and a back up generator to keep the facility running in the case of a power outage. There will be two sets of four (4) panel antennas. Each antenna will measure around one (1) foot wide and four (4) feet tall. One set of the four will be mounted on the roof of the building at the east end. The other will be mounted to the vertical gable surface at the west end of the building. Some of these antennas will not be visible from the highway while others are minimally visible. The equipment to store the antennas will be located within the structure on the ground floor of the building. In addition to the electronics and support for the antennas, backup batteries will be installed in the event of a power failure. Additionally, backup diesel generators will be located outside the building adjacent to the equipment room. This generator will run once a week for 30 minutes as a maintained measure and in the event of a power failure. III. PROPERTY & SURROUNDING ZONING Ras�bud Canatsry s \801 com0wr4f. 22 m, r INNER' Bureau of Land This zoning map shows the subject property is located in the County's Commercial General Zone District. It is surrounded by Commercial General zoning (in the City) to the west; a four -lane State Highway, cemetery, and BOCC 09/07/2008 FJ Commercial General zoning to the south; Commercial General zoning to the east and BLM to the north. While the property itself (and most of the adjoining properties are developed in a commercial nature) the properties to the east are predominantly residentially developed. See the photo below: IV. REFERRALS Staff referred the application to the following review agencies and/or County Departments: City of Glenwood Springs The referral was sent on October 3rd, and in the response received by Building & Planning Staff from the Director of Community Development stated the following: "While the proposed antennas are relatively low profile, according to the view plane analysis included in the application, if would be preferable if they could be enclosed, screened from view or incorporated into the building's design. We appreciate the efforts made to co -locate this facility but understand that this was not BOCC 01/07/2008 FJ possible. Any efforts to reduce the visual impact of the antennae array would be in the City's best interests." V. REVIEW STANDARDS (Section 5.03 & 5.03.13 of the Zoning Resolution) 5.03 (A) Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering standards and approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use; Staff Finding This is an unmanned facility. Water and sewer services will not be required. 5.03 (B) Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use; Staff Finding Once the construction is complete, the site will be visited once or twice a month by a technician in a small truck for routine maintenance. Phone and electrical services will be required, and will come from existing services at the Glenwood Commercial property. Current street improvements are adequate to accommodate the traffic generated by the operation of a communication facility on the subject property. 5.03 (C) Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character; Staff Finding The proposed facility will be located approximately 420 feet from Highway 82 and will be minimally visible from the State Highway right-of-way. BOCC 04/07/2008 FJ The antennas are shown graphically here as they are proposed on each end of the building: Fast End 6 Elevation IVI tA5LM UYL Git Ba[ or WWi* LIN =0 s j� .— O West End - - EIF levation L?l L_______ --- 0. ���EI III u a'.o�7 :rhi W sx or arctic I $rav v-`4 It appears that the both sets of antennas will be virtually impossible to see from State Highway 82. The antennas on the Glenwood (west) end of the building are below roofline and will not skyline over the roof and blend against the end of the structure. The antennas on the Carbondale (southeast) end of the building will be visible from some of the residences east of the property as they are on top of the gable roof. It is important to note, this standard (5.03 (C)) equips the Board with the ability to require screening in order to "minimize impact on adjacent uses... in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character." It is important to point out that single-family dwellings are a "use -by -right" in the CG zoning whereas Communications Facilities require "special use Permits" that require a public hearing due to potential impacts and are not a use -by -right. For this specific visual impact to those few residences to the east, the Board should consider the possibility of requiring an enclosure around the antennas to minimize their visual impact. BOCC 01/07/2008 FJ Section 5.03.13 [Broadcasting Studio and/or Communication Facility] Pursuant to Section 5.03.13 of the Zoning Resolution, a permit for Communication Facilities requires that such facilities be approved by the Federal Communication Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration, where appropriate. In addition the following standards will be used in the review of application for a communication facility.- (1) acility: (1) All facilities shall comply with the radio frequency emission requirements of the Federal Communication Commission and any facility in compliance cannot be denied. Staff Finding The Applicant has stated that "All Verizon Wireless facilities comply with the FCC emission requirements" and has provided the Universal Licensing System (ULS) License held by Verizon Wireless to establish such systems in the State of Colorado. Should the Board approve this Special Use Permit, Staff suggests this standard be a continual condition of approval. (2) The co -location of telecommunication facilities on one site is encouraged and the denial of a landowner 1 lessor of the co -location of a site shall be based on technical reasons, not on competitive interests. It is the County's policy to minimize the number of communication facilities by the encouragement of co -locating such facilities. Staff Finding As the Board is aware, this Application was denied previously on November 5, 2007, in part, due to the lack of information showing that there were no other locations that allowed co -location. Further, this new building upon which the antennas were to be erected constituted a new facility. The motion in the minutes from that meeting are included here (and attached in full) for the Board's reference: Commissioner McCown — 1 make a motion to approve the special use permit for a communications facility with conditions from staff deleting Condition No. four (4) and to emphasis and question No. five (5) by including run times will be conductive to area setting and that the generator will be outside, it will not be in an existing building but it will be in a concrete wall structure to also impede the sound and 1 believe that was testified to by the applicant. Chairman Martin — all right we have a motion, 1'!1 second the motion and we'll have a discussion and go from there. Discussion: Chairman Martin — any words of wisdom. BOCC 01/07/2008 FJ Commissioner McCown — they answered pretty well all of my questions; all have been answered by the applicant, I know there's a lot of concerns by the citizens, 1 don't think that, well 1 know for a fact that this is not something you have to acknowledge to a person, its not something you have to tell someone that if you're selling the property that there is some type of a communication facility within x number of feet of your parcel and 1 guess the way the real estate market is in this area, I can't even envision that something as iniquitous as what's proposed here today would have any adverse effect four hundred and twenty (420) feet away from Highway 82 and barely visible and that's why I chose to remove the structure. 1 think the structures surrounding the antenna would have been more obnoxious than just the basic four (4) antennae that's proposed, I don't think you'll see the ones on the other end at all. But 1 cannot believe that it would hurt the sale of homes, if it were a large steel tower proposed with a flashing light on it because of the airport maybe, 1 don't know, but this one l don't think the average person would be able to find it if you were asked to locate it. That's why I made the motion to approve. Chairman Martin — and I seconded the motion. 1 find other issues that are there and that happens to be the number one (1); we've always encouraged to make sure that we brought telecommunications and towers and l think we were the first one in the area to go ahead and have rules and regulations in reference to that back in ninety six ('96) ninety seven ('97); we also encourage extremely hard that we do co -locations and there are numerous areas that have co -locations and that's one of the reasons is because it's not acceptable in a lot of neighborhoods. We've done everything we could in reference to view shed, location to the neighbors, in and under federal regulations you can't deny because of health issues, uh but uh it's not acceptable in the neighborhood, it may not be in the best interest of the neighborhood and those that live there and uh the building is not even built yet so its not an existing site, so it will be a new site. With all that 1'!I have to make a decision in the next thirty (30) seconds and we call for the question. All those in favor'? In favor. • McCown — aye Opposed: Martin — aye; Houpt— absent Chairman Martin - 1 opposed simply because 1 think it is new and we do have existing sites that are more acceptable to the neighborhoods because they are there and can be used by Verizon which they are using in other sites. 1 just want to see that we maximize our sites as we did in Carbondale and New Castle and in Rifle —1'11 like to see that happen. 1 find it is a tied vote, at that point it is not a positive vote, and that it dies. Michael Howard — correct. Therefore we need a motion in the negative. BOCC 01/07/2008 FJ Chairman Martin — all right You are correct on that one. And 171 probably get the same issue and that is 1'11 make a motion to deny because it is not in the best area, it is not a co -location site but it is a new site, that other sites are available within the area that would fit the use and that this site itself is not crucial to the operation of Verizon, that it still can function, it only is an enhancement to their service and therefore 1 say please use existing sites in the motion. Commissioner McCown — I will second for discussion. Chairman Martin —1 knew you would. Commissioner McCown - and merely state that if the first tower was never allowed in Garfield County, there would never be co -locations and this is a tower and the facility owner has already said he would have no problem with co -locations so maybe it would only enhance future co -locations in the area as opposed to not allowing to exist anyway. Chairman Martin — in agreement 1 think Verizon is a company we all use; 1 have nothing against them 1 just think the location is a new site and we promised our citizens that we would limit those sites and use co -location sites and we try to encourage that and I've not heard any evidence saying that it is absolutely crucial that the service would end if this site was not approved. So therefore I say it is just an enhancement to the existing site and call for the question, all those in favor? In favor Martin —aye imposed McCown — aye; Houpt - absent In response to these comments, the Applicant has provided additional information in the new application materials that specifically includes a map and supporting matrix that identifies 12 sites that Verizon considered but wouldn't work for various reasons that ranged from engineering challenges, owner agreement issues, and County height restrictions. The materials also point out 18 other FCC Registered Antenna Structures with no reason why those sites wouldn't work. As the standard points out, co -location is encouraged (not required). The Applicant has provided information about other sites, but it appears these are all virgin sites and not existing communications facilities that would meet the intent for co -location. As such, the Applicant has not demonstrated that co -location on existing sites is not possible. This standard has not been met primarily due to: 1) It is unclear if the 12 sites sought by Verizon were existing communications facilities (that would allow co -location) or virgin sites; and BOCC 01/07/2008 FJ 2) There is not enough evidence provided in the application materials that demonstrates that there are not co -location opportunities with the 18 FCC Registered Antenna Structures. (3) A freestanding telecommunication facility, including antennas, shall not exceed the maximum structure height in the applicable zone district unless an exception is approved by the Board based on the applicant demonstrating the following: (a) Use of existing land forms, vegetation and structures to aid in screening the facility from view or blending in with the surrounding built natural environment (b) Design, materials and colors of antennas and their support structures, shall be compatible with the surrounding environment, and monopole support structures shall taper from the base to the tip. (c) It is consistent with existing communication facilities on the same site. Response The proposed Communications Facility is not considered a free standing facility as it is proposed to be located on a proposed building in the CG zone district. The maximum allowed height in the CG Zone District is 35 feet. A strict reading of the building height calculation in Section 2.02.09 of the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended measures building height as "The distance, measured vertically, from the undisturbed or natural ground surface at the mid -point between the front and rear walls of a building to the top of a flat roof or mansard roof or to the mid -point between the eave line and the peak of a gable, hip, shed or similar pitched roof." T 0. 'I "SM OTEHHAS :lUSTIH . BULDI iG HOOF -3- 256" l� 7 4 F f. 1 1:ATURAL C�.R3: Q CEVTik OF r uROu" 11 EAST SIX a= OJL INZ -- r , BOCC 01/07/2008 FJ Based on the original natural grade, as illustrated above, the measurement of the building height (based on the definition of height in the Zoning Resolution) begins at 24 feet where the natural grade of the site once existed. The highest point of the building terminates at 22 feet 3 inches from natural grade. The proposed antennas, which are a total of 3 feet 3 inches, terminate at 25 feet 6 inches from natural grade. This meets the strict interpretation of the Zoning Resolution and is below the maximum height of 35 feet in the CG zone district. In order to prove original natural grade, the Applicant provided an elevation showing natural grade and the wireless facilities stamped and signed by a surveyor licensed to practice in the State of Colorado. [As a practical matter, based on today's existing grade, the structure will terminate at 46 feet 3 inches at its highest point with the wireless facility terminating at 49 feet 6 inches.] Again, these antennas are not "free-standing" antennas as the standard envisions; rather, they are proposed to be located on a proposed commercial building that is a use -by -right in the zone district. Staff finds locating antennas on existing (or soon to be existing) structures such as this large commercial building to be preferable than erecting antennas on a free-standing tower requiring a new footprint dedicated solely to the facility. Additionally, by locating on a building, they can often be incorporated into the architectural style of the building making them less visibly intrusive. Staff continues to recommend (should the Board approve the Application) that the antennas be screened or incorporated architecturally into the structure because, while the antennas will not be visibly impacting to those traveling State Highway 82, they will be visible by the adjacent properties to the east that have been residentially improved. VI. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. Proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete; however, not all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted, but all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. The above stated and other reasons, the proposed Special Use Permit has been determined not to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. The application has not met all of the requirements of Sections 5.03, 5.03.13, and 9.03) of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. BOCC 01/07/2008 FJ VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION At this time, Staff cannot recommend the Board approve the request for a Special Use Permit to allow a "Communication Facility" for Verizon Wireless on the property owned by Glenwood Commercial, LLC specifically finding that the following standard (5.03.13(2) of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended) has not been met for the following two reasons: 1) It is unclear if the 12 sites sought by Verizon were existing communications facilities (that would allow co -location) or virgin sites; and 2) There is not enough evidence provided in the application materials that demonstrates that there are not co -location opportunities with the 18 FCC Registered Antenna Structures. 5.03.93(2) The co -location of telecommunication facilities on one site is encouraged and the denial of a landowner / lessor of the co -location of a site shall be based on technical reasons, not on competitive interests. It is the County's policy to minimize the number of communication facilities by the encouragement of co -locating such facilities. NIll K101 ����1�� , +�11�,4�4"h���1�4�C1i�1�1�? III�� 11111 Reception#. 741361 61!1712008 03 23 23 PM Jean Alberico 1 of i Rec Fee.SO.00 Doc Fee a 00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO SPECIAL USE PERMIT for Glenwood Commercial, LLC G In accordance with and pursuant to the provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, and Resolution No. 2008 - 11 of the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, State of Colorado, hereby authorizes, by Special Use Permit, the following activity: ,`Communications Facility" [The construction and installation of proposed facility will include two sets of panel antennas. One set of two will be mounted on the roof of the building at the east end enclosed within a cupola. The 4 antenna will be mounted to the vertical gable surface at the west end of the building. Each antenna will measure around one (1) foot wide and four (4) feet tall The wireless facility will have 3 primary components: the antennas, equipment to support the antennas, and a back up generator.) The Special Use Permit is issued subject to the conditions set forth in the above- mentioned resolution, and shall be valid only during compliance with such conditions and other applicable provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, Subdivision Regulations, Building Code, and other regulations of the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado. ATTES GARFjF �. • c ' : Z �* Clerk of the Boar GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISWONEtS, Chai COLO BOARD OF GARFIELD ■III�����1��M���WL������►��ML'I��LI�LG���1�1� SII!! Reception#: 741360 01/1712008 03 23.23 PM Jean Alberico 1 of 4 Rec Fee $O 00 Doc Fee0 00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Plaza Building, -in Glenwood Springs on Monday, the 7`h day of January, 2008, there were present: when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 2008-11 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECiAi. USE PERMIT FOR A COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY FOR VERIZON WIRELESS ON PROPERTY OWNED BY GLENWOOD COMMERCIAL, LLC Parcel ID: 2185-223-00-015 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, received an application for a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a "Communications Facility" submitted by Verizon Wireless (the Applicant) on a property owned by Glenwood Commercial, LLC (the Owner); and WHEREAS, the Applicant proposed to construct two sets of 4 wireless panel antennas on the roof top of a building yet to be constructed where the antennas will be located on each end of the building within the building's maximum height limit of 35 feet; and WHEREAS, the subject property (the Property) is located south of the City of Glenwood Springs in the Commercial General (CG) zone district and in Study Area I of the Comprehensive Plan of 2000, and is legally described as Parcel's A and B in a portion of the NE'/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 22, Township 6 South, Range 89 West of the 6th P.M. having a more practical address of 2550 South `State Highway 82, Glenwood Springs, CO; and Commissioner Chairman John Martin , Commissioner Larry McCown , Commissioner Tresi Houpt , County Attorney Don DeFord , Clerk of the Board Jean Alberico , County Manager Ed Green , when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 2008-11 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECiAi. USE PERMIT FOR A COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY FOR VERIZON WIRELESS ON PROPERTY OWNED BY GLENWOOD COMMERCIAL, LLC Parcel ID: 2185-223-00-015 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, received an application for a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a "Communications Facility" submitted by Verizon Wireless (the Applicant) on a property owned by Glenwood Commercial, LLC (the Owner); and WHEREAS, the Applicant proposed to construct two sets of 4 wireless panel antennas on the roof top of a building yet to be constructed where the antennas will be located on each end of the building within the building's maximum height limit of 35 feet; and WHEREAS, the subject property (the Property) is located south of the City of Glenwood Springs in the Commercial General (CG) zone district and in Study Area I of the Comprehensive Plan of 2000, and is legally described as Parcel's A and B in a portion of the NE'/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 22, Township 6 South, Range 89 West of the 6th P.M. having a more practical address of 2550 South `State Highway 82, Glenwood Springs, CO; and Sill K FUNNI MIM IWIMICA M M4 milli Recepption#: 741360 01I17�12008 03 23 23 AM Jean Alberico 2 of 4 Rec Fee, SO 00 Doc Fee 0.00 GARF15LD COUNTY CO WHEREAS, Section 2.02.155 of the Zoning Resolution of 1978 as amended defines a Communications Facility as "A non -inhabitable structure supporting antennas and microwave dishes that sends and/or receives radio frequency signals, including television and date impulses through space by means of electromagnetic waves. Communication facilities include structures or towers, and accessory building, not including individuallpersonal direct -to -home satellite services"; and WHEREAS, Section 3.08.03 of the Zoning Resolution of 1978 as amended includes a Communications Facility as a SUP; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners opened a public hearing on the 7`h day of January, 2008 upon the question of whether the above-described SUP for a Communications Facility should be granted or denied, during which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the issuance of said SUP; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners closed the public hearing on the 7`h day of January, 2008 to make a final decision; and WHEREAS, the Board on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determination of fact as listed below: 1) That the approval of such Communications Facilities is in the best interests of the general health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 2) That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 3) That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 4) That the Communications Facilities comply with Sections 5.03, 5.03.13, and 9.0 of the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, if all conditions have been met. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that Special Use Permit is hereby approved subject to compliance with all of the following specific conditions: 1) That all representations made by the Applicant in the application and as testimony in the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners shall be considered conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 11 11 K FLiirifllKj1i6J1 Reception#: 741360 01!17!2008 03 23 23 PM Jean Afberico 3 of 4 Rec Fee.$G 00 Doe Fee 0 00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO 2) That the Applicant shall be obligated to meet with the residents to determine what time of day is most suitable for the regularly scheduled maintenance running of the generator. If a time cannot be agreed upon by the neighbors and Verizon Wireless, then Verizon Wireless can choose a time that best suits their needs. 3) That the proposal specifically incorporates the reduction of the four antennas on the east end of the building to two antennas and is enclosed in a roof top cupola as depicted in Exhibit R and scanned here for reference. Dated this I i{` day of c , A.D. 2008. ATTEST: • :n �1 :O •c i ����'•.....••'� c Cyt H-. Dated this I i{` day of c , A.D. 2008. ATTEST: Clerk of the Boar Upon motion duly made in the affirmative to Resolution was adopted by the following vote: GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD n COUNTY, the John Martin 1qj-y- Larry McCown , Aye Tresi Houpt , Aye • :n �1 :O •c i ����'•.....••'� c Cyt Clerk of the Boar Upon motion duly made in the affirmative to Resolution was adopted by the following vote: GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD n COUNTY, the John Martin 1qj-y- Larry McCown , Aye Tresi Houpt , Aye 011ibled Milli Reception#: 741360 4i117 or 4zRae Fee:$0 023 0AM Joan 000 Fee.0 00rico GARFIELD COUNTY Co STATE OF COLORADO ) }ss County of Garfield ) I, , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D. 2008 County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Conunissioners