AGENDA TUESDAY FEBRUARY 9, 2016

Transcription

1 Board of MESA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Colorado AGENDA TUESDAY FEBRUARY 9, 2016 Call Meeting to Order: LAND USE 544 Rood Avenue, Public Hearing Room 9:00 a.m. Deletions from Agenda: Additions to Agenda: Approval of Minutes: NONE CONTINUED TO ITEM(S): NONE WITHDRAWN ITEM(S): NONE CONSENT ITEM(S): NONE INDIVIDUAL HEARING ITEM(S): PRESENTATION RULES: Due to the volume of items to be heard the following restrictions may be applied to help expedite the hearing process: a) Where practical, presentations by staff and petitioners will be limited to 15 minutes or less. Petitioners are asked to not repeat presentation information that the staff has correctly presented. Please address the clarification to the staff's presentation, new information or new developments to the project, and the staff and agency review comments and recommendations. b) Responses in favor or in opposition to the proposal will be limited to approximately 3 minutes each. We prefer only new information to be presented. A single speaker may be selected on behalf of organized groups.

2 BOCC Land Use February 9, 2016 Page 2 of 3 INDIVIDUAL HEARING ITEM(S): CP MIDLANDS SELF STORAGE PUD AMENDMENT Property Owner: Midlands Village Properties I, LLC Representative: Tom Logue Location: 435 and Road, Clifton, (D½ and 32 Roads) Zoning: RMF-8 Planner: Christie Barton, , christie.barton@mesacounty.us Request: Amend the Midlands Village PUD to include the Road property for a self-storage and office facility for use by Midlands Village residents and the public. The use includes 341 self-storage units, a 290 square foot office, and temporary outdoor storage of recreation vehicles (RVs and boats). The units along the west, north and east property lines will be temperature-controlled units with internal hallway access. The previous property owner (Banks) will have life use of the property. Development of the property will occur in three phases. Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions and Adoption of Resolution MCPC Recommendation: Approval with Conditions, CPA AUBURNE II SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN APPEAL Property Owner: David and Amy Ward, and Sonshine IV Constr. & Development LLC Representative: Jim Atkinson, Vortex Engineering, Inc. Location: Rd and 1850 Aerie Ct, Fruita, (19 & M ½ Rd & Aerie Ct) Zoning: AFT Planner: Christie Barton, , christie.barton@mesacounty.us Request: Appeal of an administrative condition of approval for a concept plan application for an eight-lot subdivision. The basis of the condition was the requirement of a 6 water line for fire flow as required in the Density by Design Toolbox in Section of the Land Development Code that allowed the applicants to achieve eight lots instead of four lots. Mesa County required the 6 water line be extended to the northern property line, but Ute Water required that the 6 water line be extended along the frontage of the property. Staff Recommendation: Uphold staff's administrative decision and Adoption of the Resolution BRIEFING ITEM(S): NONE UNSCHEDULED BUSINESS: Please present your comments within ten (10) minutes. ADJOURN

3 BOCC Land Use February 9, 2016 Page 3 of 3 THE COMMISSIONERS MAY TAKE A LUNCH BREAK, IF THE MEETING IS NOT COMPLETE. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING On February 4, 2016 at 2:30 p.m., Gina Schlagel did post the above AGENDA as public notice of the February 9, 2016 meeting. The official notice is placed on the East Entrance bulletin board at 544 Rood Avenue, Grand Junction, CO and a courtesy copy added to the Mesa County website at Gina Schlagel **PLEASE NOTE** There is limited free public parking on the southeast corner of 6 th Street and White Avenue. Copies of Staff Report(s) for Land Use Items are available on the back table of the hearing room.

4 LAND USE ITEMS February 9, :00 A.M. 544 Rood Avenue Grand Junction, Co. 1

5 BoCC Rolling Calendar February 9, 2016 Board of County Commissioner's Hearing Rood Ave - Hearing Room Project # Project Name Planner Status New BoCC CP Midlands Self Storage PUD Amendment Christie OK CPA Auburne II Subdivision Concept Plan Appeal Christie OK February 16, 2016 Board of County Commissioner's Hearing Rood Ave - Hearing Room Project # Project Name Planner Status New BoCC VA Van Winkle Vacation of Right of Way Christie OK March 8, 2016 Board of County Commissioner's Hearing Rood Ave - Hearing Room Project # Project Name Planner Status New BoCC MSPA Grand West KIA/Tractor Minor Site Plan Appeal Jeff OK April 12, 2016 Board of County Commissioner's Hearing Rood Ave - Hearing Room Project # Project Name Planner Status New BoCC CUP Driven Experiences Amendment to CUP Jeff OK 2

6 Index/ Location Map 3

7 INDEX MESA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LAND USE HEARING FEBRUARY 9, 2016 HEARING ITEM(S): CP MIDLANDS SELF STORAGE PUD AMENDMENT Pg CPA AUBURNE II SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN APPEAL Pg 4

8 ! ! 1 Miles 27 BoCC Hearing Items February 9, 2016 Location Map 4

9 PROJECT REVIEW 6

10 MESA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Administration - Building - Engineering Road and Bridge Traffic - Planning - Solid Waste Management 200 S. Spruce Street P.O. Box 20, Grand Junction, CO Phone (970) Fax (970) PROJECT REVIEW August 12, 2015 Amended December 7, 2015 I CP MIDLANDS VILLAGE SELF-STORAGE PUD AMENDMENT Property Owner: Midlands Village Properties I, LLC Representative: Tom Logue Location: 435 and Road, Clifton, (D½ and 32 Roads) Parcel #: & Zoning: RMF-8 Planner: Christie Barton, , christie.barton@mesacounty.us Request: Amend the Midlands Village PUD to include the Road property for a selfstorage and office facility for use by Midlands Village residents and the public. The use includes 341 self-storage units, a 290 square foot office, and temporary outdoor storage of recreation vehicles (RVs and boats). The units along the west, north and east property lines will be temperature controlled units with internal hallway access. The previous property owner (Banks) will have life use of the property. Development of the property will occur in three phases. Recommendation: Approval with conditions and adoption of the resolution Location & Zoning Map: Page 1 of 9 7

11 II. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING: Zoning within the 500-foot public notification area: C-1 (RSC Clifton) B-1 RMF-8 Grand Junction City Limits Land Uses within the 500-foot public notification area: Commercial Chatfield Elementary School Residential Agricultural State Highway 141 (also known as 32 Road) Applicable Area Plans Grand Junction Comprehensive Plan III. PROJECT HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION: Project History: C Rezone to PUD (9 units/acre) and ODP, The Shire Subdivision C BOCC reverted Plan but retained zone C The Shire Business Center C through C Midlands Village Mobile Home Park, convenience store, gas station and 6,700 square feet of commercial building space C98-00 Midlands Village Community Center C Expansion of the Midlands Village Community Center C Midlands Village F Midlands Village PUD Amendment to reflect as-built conditions on site Project Description: The Road property is part of the Midlands Village Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Road property (Banks property) has been purchased by Midlands Village Properties I, LLC reserving life estate use for Mrs. Banks. The Banks property has a 1990 Stipulation and Motion for Order (attached as part of the binder materials) to clean up the property. This application benefits the community as Midlands Village personnel have cleaned up the majority of the property and will install the required fencing and screening as part of this expansion. The project has a phasing plan for the eventual use of the remainder of the property. This project is to provide self-storage units for the Midlands Village residents and for the public. The project will include 341 mini-storage units and a 290 square foot office and restroom. Hours of operation will be normal business hours, closed Sundays and major holidays. A code controlled access gate will allow off-hours customer access to the storage units. A temporary outdoor storage use for boats and RVs will occur until full build-out of the project, and then the outdoor storage will be only for Midlands Village residents in the existing boat and RV storage Page 2 of 9 8

12 area. The use will be screened from D½ Road by fencing and landscaping. Existing vegetation and fencing effectively screens the property from 32 Road. The property is located within the Grand Junction Comprehensive Plan Area and within the Clifton Sanitation District. This property is not required to annex into the City of Grand Junction under the Persigo Agreement. The Future Land Use classifications for the property are Residential Medium (RM) and Mixed Use Opportunity Corridor along 32 Road. This use will have outdoor storage (boats and RVs) until the final build-out occurs. The Midlands Village PUD allows the outdoor storage of boats and RV s as an accessory use to their mobile home park. This is a temporary expansion of the outdoor storage use with storage units, fencing and landscaping along the roads providing the screening and buffering. Site Plan with phasing: IV. COMPLIANCE WITH MESA COUNTY CODE REQUIREMENTS: Section 3.7 Planned Unit Developments (PUD) Planned Unit Developments are approved and processed in the same manner as Major Subdivisions. The first step involves scheduling a General Meeting. A Planned Unit Development application will follow the General Meeting and Neighborhood Meeting processes described in Chapter 3.6, Major Subdivisions. A Neighborhood Meeting was held January 11, Notes from the meeting are included in the binder. F. Concept Plan and PUD Rezoning Approval Criteria Concept Plans and PUD Rezonings may be approved by the Board of County Commissioners only if they find that all of the following criteria have been met: Page 3 of 9 9

13 1. the proposed Concept Plan is consistent with the Mesa County Master Plan pursuant to C.R.S ; The Grand Junction Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2010 with an addition to the Future Land Use classification along major roadways in the Plan area. The Mixed Use Opportunity Corridor allows neighborhood service and commercial uses with no outdoor storage at various locations along the identified roadways. This future land use classification anticipates service, retail and office commercial uses that service the immediate surrounding area with no outdoor storage at various locations along the identified corridors. While the implementing zones of Residential Office and Limited Business zoning districts don t allow storage units, the Midlands Village Planned Unit Development allowed the convenience store (retail commercial use) as part of the project. The proposed outdoor storage is temporary until full build out of the storage units. This expansion meets the intent of the service commercial use stated in Goal 3, Policy A & B in the Grand Junction Comprehensive Plan, which is an element of the Mesa County Master Plan. This plan is also consistent with the Pear Park Neighborhood Plan, which has goals of achieving high quality development and minimization of visual clutter along corridors. This criterion has been met. 2. the Concept Plan is necessary to address a unique situation or represents a substantial benefit to the County, compared to what could have been accomplished through strict application of otherwise applicable base zoning district standards, based on the Purposes set out in Section 1.5; Midlands Village is an existing Planned Unit Development that has commercial and residential uses with an integrated transportation system. The original project was approved under the 1995 Land Development Code, and PUDs were allowed with provision of a public benefit. The original plan showed a sidewalk on Shire Court, which connected Midlands Village to a sidewalk on D½ Road to a crossing to Chatfield Elementary School. This sidewalk was never built, and the pedestrian access from Midlands Village was blocked with landscaping. The applicant has agreed to build the sidewalk connecting Midlands Village and D½ Road along the east side of Shire Court. This is a community benefit to allow pedestrian access between a residential use and an elementary school. This expansion of the PUD zoning district also addresses a long-standing Code Compliance case. The property owners have cleaned up the Banks property, and have submitted plans showing fencing and an extension of the landscaping strip that will screen the property from D½ Road (32 Road is already screened with a berm, fence and vegetation). Once Mrs. Banks no longer lives on the property, the mobile home and personal items will be removed, and Phase 3 of the self-storage units will be completed. The expansion and amendment of the PUD cleans up the property and allows a new business that benefits the PUD. It would be difficult to accommodate this use with a standard zoning district as it is not supported by the implementing zoning districts for the Mixed Use Opportunity Corridor Future Land Use classification. It meets the intent to create large and small centers throughout the community that provides services and commercial areas as part of the future growth of the community. This criterion has been met. 3. the Concept Plan complies with the PUD regulations of Section 4.4.1; PUD, Planned Unit Development District Page 4 of 9 10

14 The PUD, Planned Unit Development District is intended to encourage innovative land planning and site design concepts that implement and are consistent with the Mesa County Master Plan. A. Developer's Statement of Intent Each Concept Plan application shall contain a statement by the applicant describing how the proposed development departs from the otherwise applicable standards of this Land Development Code, and how the proposed development, on balance, is an improvement over what would be required under otherwise applicable standards. Midlands Village is an existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) that incorporates residential and commercial in the same project. The PUD allowed an outdoor storage area for boats and RVs as an accessory use to the mobile home park. The self-storage business will be available for use by Midlands Village residents and the public. The temporary boat and RV storage will be removed at full build out of the self-storage unit project. A monument sign is proposed for D½ Road. The underlying zoning district is RMF-8 with Future Land Use classifications of Residential Medium and Mixed Use Opportunity Corridor. The departure from the Land Development Code standards is the implementing zoning districts for the Mixed Use Opportunity Corridor are Residential Office and Limited Business districts, neither of which allows self-storage units. The Planning Division believes this application meets the intent of the Master Plan for commercial uses to be created throughout the community to accommodate future growth. The proposed use provides a community and public benefit for a safer route to school, and also addresses a 1990 court order for clean-up of the Banks property. This requirement can be met. B. Review and Approval Procedures PUDs shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the procedures of Section 3.7. This requirement has been met. C. Use Regulations The Board of County Commissioners shall determine the types of uses allowed within a PUD at the time of Concept Plan approval. Only uses that are consistent with the Mesa County Master Plan pursuant to C.R.S , may be allowed within a PUD, and should generally be limited to uses allowed in the underlying Zoning District. The Midlands Village PUD was adopted in 1996 and included the convenience store (retail commercial use) as part of the project. The management of Midlands Village has maintained the property in an exemplary manner. The Grand Junction Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2010 with the addition of the Mixed Use Opportunity Corridors. These corridors are an overlay on the major roads in the urban area, and anticipate service and retail uses that serve the neighborhood at full service intersections. These intersections have all necessary infrastructure installed to support these uses. While the overlay covers these corridors, not all properties are able to support these uses. Additionally, service and retail uses are not always desired to be located mid-block, as this will reduce the flow of traffic on the arterial roads. This intersection is fully constructed with urban services, and can support the use. This expansion meets the intent of the service commercial use stated in Goal 3, Policies A & B in the Grand Junction Comprehensive Plan: Page 5 of 9 11

15 Goal 3: The Comprehensive Plan will create ordered and balanced growth and spread future growth throughout the community. Policy A: To create large and small centers throughout the community that provides services and commercial areas. Policy B: Create opportunities to reduce the amount of trips generated for shopping and commuting and decrease vehicle miles traveled thus increasing air quality. This requirement has been met. D. Development Intensity The total number of dwelling units and level of nonresidential development allowed within a PUD shall comply with the Mesa County Master Plan pursuant to C.R.S , and shall not exceed the level that can be adequately served by public facilities. To provide information on the capacity of streets and other facilities serving a PUD, the Planning Director may require the applicant to conduct a traffic impact study or other infrastructure capacity analysis to provide information on the development's expected impacts on existing and planned facilities. The proposed 341 self-storage units and accessory office use do not exceed the capacity of public services. A Traffic Impact Analysis has been completed for the use and no road improvements are required. No changes to the residential use are proposed. This requirement has been met. E. Other Standards Otherwise applicable standards of this Land Development Code may be modified by the Board of County Commissioners as part of the approval of a PUD, if consistent with the Mesa County Master Plan pursuant to C.R.S , and if the development is found to be an improvement over what would be required under otherwise applicable standards. Clean up of the Banks property has been the subject of a court order since Midlands Village, LLC has purchased the property with a life use for Mrs. Banks, and has completed a clean-up of three-quarters of the property. When Mrs. Banks no longer lives on the property, the final phase of the storage units will occur. Midlands Village, LLC will complete the fencing and landscaping that will address the court order and screen the storage units from D½ and 32 Roads. Master Plan Goals and Policies: Goal 3: The Comprehensive Plan will create ordered and balanced growth and spread future growth throughout the community. Policy A: To create large and small centers throughout the community that provides services and commercial areas. This development would be an expansion of an existing retail/service area at the intersection of D½ Road and 32 Road. This intersection is a full movement intersection with all infrastructure completed. Goal 7: New development adjacent to existing development (of a different density/unit type/land use type) should transition itself by incorporating appropriate buffering. Policy A: In making land use decisions, the City and County will balance the needs of the community. Goal 8: Create attractive public spaces and enhance the visual appeal of the community through quality development. Policy B: Design streets and walkways as attractive public spaces. Note: Construction of a sidewalk on Shire Court was not completed during the development of Midlands Village Filing 1. This connection to the Chatfield Elementary School is an important pedestrian connection between a residential use and the school. A pedestrian crossing on D½ Road Page 6 of 9 12

16 to Chatfield Elementary School is located within a half block of Shire Court. The applicant has agreed to construct the sidewalk as part of this project. This development is an improvement over the existing residential use with the court order for cleanup of the property. This criterion has been met. 4. the proposal is not significantly different from surrounding land uses in terms of density, intensity and impacts, and it mitigates any potential adverse impacts to maximum extent practical; Midlands Village has been established since Buffering and screening between adjacent uses mitigates the impacts. The proposal includes extension of the fencing and landscaping strip along D½ Road to mitigate the new use. A Traffic Analysis Letter has been submitted as part of the application packet, and states no additional improvements are required. A gate will be installed between Midlands Village and the new storage area as a barrier to cut-through traffic. A monument sign along D½ Road will be installed for the project. This criterion has been met. 5. facilities and services (including sewage and waste disposal, domestic water, irrigation water [where available], gas, electricity, police and fire protection, and roads and transportation, as applicable) shall be available upon completion of the project to serve the subject property, while maintaining adequate levels of service to existing development; and Urban facilities and services are available to the site. The property is served by Clifton Sanitation and a change of use is required for this service. The property is also served by Clifton Water, Grand Valley Irrigation Company, Grand Valley Drainage District, and Xcel Energy for electricity and natural gas. Clifton Fire District and Mesa Count Sheriff s Office provide emergency services. Right of way dedication on D½ Road is required to meet the Road Petition recorded at Reception # No impacts to existing levels of service to the neighborhood are expected with this application. This criterion can be met. 6. the same development could not be accomplished through the use of other techniques, such as rezoning to a non-pud district, variances, or administrative adjustments. This development has residential and commercial uses incorporated as part of the PUD. The same development could not be accomplished through the use of other techniques, such as a commercial zoning district, as this would not be in compliance with the Future Land Use map. This criterion has been met. Section 11.4 Violations and Enforcement Permits Approved with Conditions Instead of withholding or denying a permit or other authorization (as described in Section ), the County may grant such authorization subject to the condition that the violation be corrected. Since purchasing the Banks property, Midlands Village Properties I, LLC has removed junk and debris from the property. The narrative states they will install fencing (that was required in the court order) and extend similar landscaping to the existing landscaping along 32 Road. Approval of this application, with a condition of approval for the fencing and screening, accomplishes a clean-up of a long standing unsightly property. The Court Stipulation and Motion for Order is attached to this project review. This criterion can be met with conditions of approval. Page 7 of 9 13

17 Section General Approval Criteria The decision making body shall consider if the proposal: A. Complies with all applicable standards, provisions, and the purposes (Sec. 1.5) of the Land Development Code. This use is an expansion of the existing private storage use for the Midlands Village residents in conjunction with the Mixed Use Opportunity Corridor Future Land Use along 32 Road. It also incorporates self-storage units for the Midlands Village residents and for the public. It appears that the application can comply, with conditions of approval, with all applicable provisions of the Land Development Code. This criterion has been met. B. The project application is consistent with review agency comments. All review agency comments received are included in the hearing packet and project file. No objections have been received. This criterion can be met. C. The project application is consistent with applicable intergovernmental agreements (IGA) between the county and other entities. The City of Grand Junction has been notified of the application. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) was also notified of the application. Comments have not been received from either agency. This criterion has been met. V. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS: All review comments received are a part of the hearing packet and the file. VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS: No public comments have been received by the date of this review. VII. PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends approval and adoption of the resolution of the Midlands Village Self-Storage PUD Amendment, with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments not in conflict with the conditions of approval shall be resolved with the final plan. 2. A Site Development Plan shall be recorded for the project after a Final Plan review. 3. The applicant shall submit a Sign Permit application for the monument sign. 4. A Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) of $6, is required to be paid to the Planning Division prior to commercial site plan approval. 5. Outdoor lighting shall be full cut-off light fixtures in conformance with Section of the Land Development Code. 6. Right of Way dedication along D½ Road is required to match the Road Petition recorded in Road Book 2 at Page 153 File Number Fencing and landscaping for screening and buffering are to be installed along D½ Road in conformance with the Stipulation and Motion for Order of the Banks property by June 1, A sidewalk along the east side of Shire Drive shall be constructed from Lancaster Drive to D½ Road. Construction drawings shall be included in the Final Plan application, and a Development Improvement Agreement is required. The sidewalk shall be completed within one year of Final Plan approval. Page 8 of 9 14

18 The basis for this recommendation: The petition complies or can comply with conditions of approval with the criteria in PUD criteria in Section and Section 4.4.1, and the General Approval Criteria in Section of the Mesa County Land Development Code (2000, as amended). Section allows Mesa County to approve permits with conditions. Summary PUD Approval Criteria 3.7.1F Condition # 1. Consistent with Master Plan Has Been Met 2. Unique situation or substantial benefit Has Been Met 3. Compliance with PUD Regs in Can Be Met 7 & 8 4. Not significantly different from Has Been Met surrounding and nearby land uses, and mitigates impacts 5. Facilities and Services Can Be Met Could not be accomplished through use of techniques other than PUD Has Been Met General Approval Criteria A. Compliance with applicable standards and provisions in the Land Development Code Has been met B. Consistency with review agency comments Can be met 1, 4 C. Consistency with applicable IGAs Has been met Violations and Enforcement 11.4 Section Permits Approved with conditions Can be met 7 VIII. MCPC ACTION (1/21/16): The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions, with a vote of 6-0. IX. BOCC ACTION: (2/9/16): Page 9 of 9 15

19 16

20 17

21 18

22 19

23 20

24 21

25 22

26 23

27 24

28 25

29 26

30 27

31 28

32 29

33 HEARING NOTICE 30

34 500 ft buffer Parcels Urban Growth Area " Parcel/Notification Map Midlands Self Storage PUD Amend CP July 31, 2015 Notification Buffer AFT Legend Miles

35 PARCEL_NUM OWNER MAILING CITY ST ZIP AAMOLD CARROLL E 579 ELKHART LN GRAND JUNCTIOCO ABAD LORA RD CLIFTON CO AMBRIZ ANA M 3207 D 1/2 RD CLIFTON CO ATKINSON ALBERT RD UNIT 112 CLIFTON CO AVILA EDGAR 3210 WHITE CIR W CLIFTON CO BANK OF AMERICA NA 475 CROSSPOINT PARKWAYGETZVILLE NY BANKS BEULAH C LIFE EST RD CLIFTON CO BARNES BETTY LOU 496 CORONADO CT UNIT C CLIFTON CO BEASLEY BARBARA E RD UNIT 226 CLIFTON CO BERGAMO BILL RD UNIT 215 CLIFTON CO BILSON CHASE JEREMIAH RD UNIT 207 CLIFTON CO BIRD EILEEN ROSA RD UNIT 407 CLIFTON CO BLISS MILDRED E RD UNIT 401 CLIFTON CO BOGGS DON S AND BOGGS 408 LILAC LN GRAND JUNCTIOCO BRITTON JOYCE E RD UNIT 230 CLIFTON CO BRYAN WESLEY H 3203 DOWNEY CIR W CLIFTON CO BULLOCK MARY L /2 ROOD CT CLIFTON CO BURDETT ARTHUR C TRUST RD UNIT 231 CLIFTON CO C & F FOOD STORE INC 140 S 17TH ST GRAND JUNCTIOCO CAMPBELL RADINE RD UNIT 232 CLIFTON CO CASTANEDA-DELGADO ART RD TRLR 221 CLIFTON CO CHAIRO FRANK J JR RD UNIT 219 CLIFTON CO COGBURN THOMAS R RD UNIT 229 CLIFTON CO CONNOR DONALD L RD UNIT 218 CLIFTON CO CONWAY SANDY RD UNIT 217 CLIFTON CO COOPER RICHARD PO BOX 1017 EAGLE CO COSTOPOULOS RAY 3183 D 1/2 RD GRAND JUNCTIOCO CRANSTON LAND AND DEV 2447 RUBY MESA CT GRAND JUNCTIOCO CRITCHFIELD STANLEY RD UNIT 228 CLIFTON CO CRITELLI THOMAS JAMES RD UNIT 236 CLIFTON CO CRUZ RUBY RD UNIT 104 CLIFTON CO DAGGETT LINDA S 3201 W ROOD CIR CLIFTON CO DESROSIERS CHARLES J 2643 F 1/2 RD GRAND JUNCTIOCO DUNLOP SUSAN PATTEN RD UNIT 402 CLIFTON CO DUNN GINGER A RD UNIT 202 CLIFTON CO EGGERS RANDEN 3585 E 1/4 RD PALISADE CO FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGINTERNATL PLAZA DDALLAS TX FERRIN ANN S RD UNIT 409 CLIFTON CO GALLEGOS GLORIA M 3187 D 1/2 RD GRAND JUNCTIOCO GARCIA VALENTINE G 3208 WHITE CIR W CLIFTON CO GASCON DOROTHY J RD UNIT 222 CLIFTON CO GIBSON STEVEN W PO BOX 1283 CLIFTON CO GRAY PENELOPE ANN RD UNIT 225 CLIFTON CO GREGORICH JUSTIN ABEL 2904 VICTORIA DR GRAND JUNCTIOCO GROVES CLARENCE W 3201 MAIN CIR W CLIFTON CO GURULE NED II RD CLIFTON CO

36 HACKNEY CLYDE L RD UNIT 410 CLIFTON CO HANLEY ALISHA JANE 633 NORTH PLACER CT GRAMD JUNCTICO HARGIS JUSTIN ALLEN RD UNIT 224 CLIFTON CO HARRY DELORES JACQUELINPO BOX 584 PALISADE CO HAWKINS GARY M RD UNIT 204 CLIFTON CO HENRY JACK D RD UNIT 211 CLIFTON CO HOLDEN PAUL E 3208 DOWNEY CIR W CLIFTON CO HOLLAND WILLIAM S SR 3202 W DOWNEY CIR CLIFTON CO HOMES OF MIDLANDS VILL PO BOX 239 MONTROSE CO HOPPE RALPH E 3207 W ROOD CIR CLIFTON CO HUNSBERGER MELVIN R 3207 W WHITE CIR CLIFTON CO HUNTER NANCY A RD UNIT 214 CLIFTON CO HURT RONALD E 2665 I RD GRAND JUNCTIOCO JEFLANI PROPERTIES LLC 3203 W WHITE CIR CLIFTON CO JOHNSON JUNE IRENE RD UNIT 212 CLIFTON CO JULIN JON JAMES RD UNIT 210 CLIFTON CO KELLEY BRENDA SUE 3622 STONEBROOK LN IDAHO FALLS ID KNUTSON JOHN PAUL RD UNIT 238 CLIFTON CO LAWRENCE W & JOY R BOY 3181 D 1/2 RD GRAND JUNCTIOCO LOWE GUY L 3204 WHITE CIR W CLIFTON CO MAGNABOSCO CHERYL C 3202 W WHITE CIR CLIFTON CO MAHER TIMOTHY T ROAD UNIT 223 CLIFTON CO MAJORS CHARLES W 3208 ROOD CIR W CLIFTON CO MARCUS RICHARD R RD UNIT 508 CLIFTON CO MAYER EWELL E 3205 D 1/2 RD CLIFTON CO MCGEE BILLY GENE 2876 C 1/2 RD GRAND JUNCTIOCO MCLAUGHLIN SUSAN M RD UNIT 416 CLIFTON CO MENDOZA MANUEL RD PALISADE CO MESA COUNTY VALLEY SCH2115 GRAND AVE GRAND JUNCTIOCO MIDLANDS VILLAGE PROPE PO BOX 239 MONTROSE CO MILLER RICHARD E JR /4 RD CLIFTON CO MILLER SHANA DEAN 326 W WHITE CIR CLIFTON CO MIZAK ELIZABETH RD UNIT 220 CLIFTON CO MONGER TOD R 3203 W ROOD CIR CLIFTON CO MORAVEC JAMES RD UNIT 216 CLIFTON CO PACKARD ERIK 3206 D 1/2 RD CLIFTON CO PADGETT KEVIN LEE 3214 E HALL CT CLIFTON CO PARTELLO JAMES M RD UNIT 502 CLIFTON CO PELLIZZARI JOSEPH RD UNIT 213 CLIFTON CO PEREZ FRANCISCO RD CLIFTON CO PICAZO RAQUEL RD UNIT 209 CLIFTON CO REEDER GARY R RD UNIT 403 CLIFTON CO ROSE OLIVE V RD UNIT 406 CLIFTON CO RUBIO FRANK D RD UNIT 208 CLIFTON CO SANCHEZ JOSE GUADALUPE3210 ROOD CIR W CLIFTON CO SANCHEZ RICHARD P /2 WHITE CIR W CLIFTON CO SANTISTEVAN RUBIO F 3206 ROOD CIR W CLIFTON CO

37 SAULNIER JENNIFER RD UNIT 206 CLIFTON CO SCHALNUS KATIE L PO BOX 195 YAMPA CO SELDERS LARRY D ROAD GRAND JUNCTIOCO SHEPPARD JASON /2 ROOD CIR W CLIFTON CO SHOEMAKER CAROLYN MA RD UNIT 418 CLIFTON CO SILL CANDACE DIANE RD UNIT 506 CLIFTON CO SINCLAIR PATRICIA L RD UNIT 203 CLIFTON CO STANLEY BYRON H 3185 D 1/2 RD GRAND JUNCTIOCO STOUT PEGGY JO RD UNIT 404 CLIFTON CO STRICKLAND JAMES T RD UNIT 405 CLIFTON CO STUDT PRISCILLA RD UNIT 412 CLIFTON CO SWOPE CLINT RD AUSTIN CO TELLEZ JULIO OLIVO 3201 D 1/2 RD CLIFTON CO TOPAZ DRIVE LLC 579 ELKHART LN GRAND JUNCTIOCO TRIPP DUSTIN WADE RD UNIT 413 CLIFTON CO VIERS CONNIE M RD UNIT 411 CLIFTON CO VINCENZETTI FRANCIS J RD UNIT 414 CLIFTON CO WILLIAMS PATRICIA M RD UNIT 205 CLIFTON CO WITHAM SHAWNTY K RD UNIT 234 CLIFTON CO WRIGHT GARL GENE ROAD UNIT 408 CLIFTON CO ZORTMAN MATTHEW D 3209 W WHITE CIR CLIFTON CO TOM LOGUE 537 FRUITWOOD DRIVE GRAND JUNCTIOCO

38 MCPC MINUTES 01/21/16 35

39 MESA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2016 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES Vice Chair Price called to order a scheduled hearing of the Mesa County Planning Commission at 6 PM. Vice Chairman Price led the Pledge of Allegiance. The hearing was held in the Public Hearing Room, Mesa County Administration Building at 544 Rood Avenue, Grand Junction, Colorado. In attendance representing the Mesa County Planning Commission, were: Rusty Price, Chip Page, David Hartmann, George Skiff, Ron Wriston, and Robert Erbisch. In attendance, representing the Mesa County Planning Division, were: Linda Dannenberger and Christie Barton. Kathy Kinsey was present to record the minutes. There were two (2) citizens present throughout the hearing. Approval of Minutes Motion: Commissioner Wriston moved to approve the minutes as written. Second: Commissioner Erbisch Motion Approved 5-0 (Commissioner Wriston s vote does not count as he was not present at the hearing) Consent Items NONE Hearing Items CP MIDLANDS SELF STORAGE PUD AMENDMENT Property Owner: Midlands Village Properties I, LLC Representative: Tom Logue Location: 435 and Road, Clifton, (D½ and 32 Roads) Zoning: RMF-8 Planner: Christie Barton, , christie.barton@mesacounty.us Request: Amend the Midlands Village PUD to include the Road property for a self-storage and office facility for use by Midlands Village residents and the public. The use includes 341 self-storage units, a 290 square foot office, and temporary outdoor storage of recreation vehicles (RVs and boats). The units along the west, north and east property lines will be temperature controlled units with internal hallway access. The previous property owner (Banks) will have life use of the property. Development of the property will occur in three phases. Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions Board of County Commissioners Hearing Date: Staff Presentation Christie Barton entered into the record the Mesa County Land Development Code, the Mesa County Master Plan, the project review, file # CP, and the PowerPoint presentation labeled as Exhibit A. Ms. Barton showed Location, Zoning and an Aerial 36

40 Photo and pointed out the property. Ms. Barton explained the recent changes and showed the new site plan for the property. She explained that the building which will be temperature controlled, with an indoor hallway, will provide screening and buffering to the neighborhood and along D 1/2 Road. The project will be done in a phasing plan which includes 3 phases. Ms. Barton stated that while all the phases are in process they will have the RV and boat storage but when there is full build out this outdoor storage will no longer be on the property. She also pointed out that screening will be toward the property to the west and to the east where there are trees. Ms. Barton explained that the Banks home will be screened with fencing and vegetation. Mrs. Banks passed away recently and the son has 90 days to vacate the premises. They are not sure what the phasing plan will be at this point. Ms. Barton stated that a Neighborhood Meeting was held in January and no one attended. She went on to explain the approval criteria can be met with the conditions of approval. She explained that the sidewalk that was never done in the original PUD in the 1990s will be put in by the Midlands Village owners. Ms. Barton read the 8 conditions of approval and stated that there is no limit for the office hours. The renters of storage units will have access 24/7 and may come and go as needed. Question Vice Chair Price inquired about the status of the drainage issue that was discussed in the last meeting. Ms. Barton pointed out the drainage area on the new site plan and stated it will be designed at the final plan process. Commissioner Wriston asked about the setbacks and screening that was mentioned in the conditions and asked for more details. Ms. Barton explained that they were going to screen the Banks house as part of this application, and they also have a landscaping plan as part of the project. Discussion took place regarding the screening and fencing. Ms. Dannenberger stated that the court stipulation talks about screening the non-conforming use and if the use is no longer non-conforming, if it s in conformance with the PUD then it seems that the stipulation would not be current. Applicant/Representative Presentation Tom Logue appeared on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Logue stated that with Mrs. Banks recent passing, they are looking at the life estate and the phasing plan and figuring out the timing for the phasing with this current change. He stated that by the time the final engineering site development plan is submitted these details will have been addressed. Commissioner Erbisch asked if Mr. Logue could explain when they were planning on building out the Banks property. Mr. Logue stated that they want to start Phase 1 as soon as the weather breaks and that it will take most of the summer and that the entire project would take about 3 years. They may combine Phase 2 & 3 into one phase and that would make the entire project a 2-year phase. 37

41 Public Comments NONE Planning Commission Discussion & Vote NONE Motion: Commissioner Hartman moved to approve the project as posted and to include the conditions as read during the hearing. Second: Commissioner Erbisch Roll call vote taken: Hartmann - yes Erbisch - yes Price - yes Page - yes Skiff - yes Wriston - yes Motion Approved 6-0 Unscheduled Business Linda Dannenberger stated that she wanted to have a discussion about shipping containers. She explained that by policy, shipping containers are not allowed as an accessory structure on residential properties which includes urban and rural areas (AFT). She said the Planning Division has received requests to look at this again and discuss it further and believes this request pertains to more simple uses such as for storage but they are out there for other uses too and some are quite extravagant. Ms. Dannenberger mentioned that she has reached out to the Board of Realtors Legislative Committee that keeps abreast of local, state and national policies or rules and to inquire as to what the containers mean to their clients. She stated that she is waiting for feedback from this group and to do more research before approaching the Board on a possible policy change. Ms. Dannenberger went on to explain that there is a person in the community that lives on 80 acres in the AFT zone and he was told he could not put a container on his property so he built a site-built barn which was much more expensive than a container would have been. She explained that now people around him are putting different kind of containers on their properties and this citizen is concerned about the inequity. There is concern regarding the colors of the containers, possibly having graffiti or other types writing on the sides and how many of these can be put on a property. Commissioner Hartmann stated a concern about whether these are temporary or permanent and what might be allowed regarding the amount that someone can have. Further discussion took place regarding whether these are portable, what a Home Owner s Association can do about them regarding compliance and that the County would not enforce this but the particular HOA would be responsible. They also discussed what the intent of them would be and whether they would have electrical, 38

42 water, sanitation, what the setbacks are, what the height limits are in a specific area, and depending on these amenities they would have to meet building code rules. Commissioner Erbisch stated that these are portable whether full or empty and shouldn t have any effect on the land. There would need to be rules about how temporary temporary is, possibly converting one into a home, possible constraints because of aesthetics, and colors. Commissioner Price mentioned that aesthetics are a concern in other communities. Ms. Dannenberger stated that she would do further research about regulations in other places and this will be discussed further at an upcoming workshop. She stated that currently there is a policy in place that states these are not allowed on properties. Election of Officers for 2016 Nominations Motion: Commissioner Price was nominated for Chair on January 14 th at the Planning Commission Workshop. There were no other nominations for Chair. Commissioner Wriston moved to elect Commissioner Price as the Chair. Commissioner Erbisch seconded the motion. Commissioner Price accepted. Motion Approved 6-0. Motion: Commissioner Flynn was nominated for Vice Chair on January 14 th at the Workshop. There were no other nominations for Vice Chair. A vote was taken and all were in favor of Commissioner Flynn being the Vice Chair. Motion Approved 6-0. Motion: Commissioner Page and Commissioner Jones were nominated for Secretary on January 14 th at the Planning Commission Workshop. Discussion took place regarding Commissioner Pages length of time as Secretary and current eligibility. Commissioner Page took over as Secretary for Pat Bittle on July 24 th of 2014, so he is eligible. A vote was taken and all were in favor of Commissioner Page remaining as Secretary. Commissioner Page accepted. Motion Approved 6-0. Nominations were closed; a vote was taken to have the following officers reside for 2016: Chairman Rusty Price Vice Chair Christi Flynn Secretary Chip Page Motion Approved 6-0 Adjournment Motion: Commissioner Erbisch moved that the meeting be adjourned. Second: Commissioner Wriston Motion Approved 6-0 Hearing adjourned at 6:45 PM Respectfully Submitted, Chip Page, Secretary 39

43 MCPC MINUTES 08/20/15 40

44 MESA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION August 20, 2015 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES Chairman Moreng called to order a scheduled hearing of the Mesa County Planning Commission at 6 PM. Chairman Moreng led the Pledge of Allegiance. The hearing was held in the Public Hearing Room, Mesa County Administration Building at 544 Rood Avenue, Grand Junction, Colorado. In attendance representing the Mesa County Planning Commission, were: Joe Moreng, Phillip Jones, Rusty Price, David Hartmann, Ron Wriston, George Skiff, and Robert Erbisch. In attendance, representing the Mesa County Planning Division, were: Linda Dannenberger, and Christie Barton. Patrick Coleman, County Attorney was present. Kathy Kinsey was present to record the minutes. There were three (3) citizens present throughout the hearing. Approval of Minutes Motion: Commissioner Erbisch moved to approve the minutes as written. Second: Commissioner Price Motion Approved 5-0 *Chairman Moreng and Commissioner Erbisch were not present at the hearing; therefore their votes cannot be included. Chairman Moreng asked if there were any changes to the agenda. Linda Dannenberger brought to their attention that a comment was received via from a neighbor, Mr. Kroupa, in regards to the Hall Rezone project which is on the consent agenda. The comment was given to the planning commissioners and Ms. Dannenberger asked them to look it over and decide if the project should be removed from the consent agenda or not. Chairman Moreng stated that he felt Ms. Barton s response covered the neighbors issues and he doesn t feel it needs to be removed from the consent agenda. Patrick Coleman stated that this would be considered part of the hearing packet and believes the project can remain on the consent agenda. Chairman Moreng asked if any of the commissioners wanted to remove this from consent and they all agreed to leave it on consent. Mr. Kroupa was not present at the hearing. The comment was labeled as Exhibit 1. Announcements Ms. Dannenberger mentioned the Planning Commission, County Commissioner dinner being held on Wednesday, August 26 th at 6 PM located in Room 40 at MCCS. Any agenda requests need to be submitted to Chairman Moreng by Monday, August 24 th at the latest. Continued Items None 41

45 Hearing Item CP MIDLANDS SELF STORAGE PUD AMENDMENT Property Owner: Midlands Village Properties I, LLC Representative: Tom Logue Location: 435 and Road, Clifton, (D½ and 32 Roads) Zoning: RMF-8 Planner: Christie Barton, , Request: Amend the Midlands Village PUD to include the Road property for a self-storage and office facility for use by Midlands Village residents and the public. The use includes 392 self-storage units, a 290 square foot office, and outdoor storage of recreation vehicles (RVs and boats). The property owner (Banks) will have life use of the property. Development of the property will occur in three phases. Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions Board of County Commissioners Hearing Date: Staff Presentation Christie Barton entered into the record the Mesa County Master Plan, the Mesa County Land Development Code, the project review, the file # CP, the PowerPoint presentation labeled as Exhibit A and a letter that was received yesterday from the Desrosiers, is labeled as Exhibit 1. Ms. Barton explained the request for the property located at 435 and Road in Clifton. She stated that the previous owner of Road property, Mrs. Banks, has life use of the property. Ms. Barton explained that development of the property will occur in 3 phases. She then showed the location, zoning and aerial maps and pointed out the location of the Midlands Village PUD. Ms. Barton explained that there is an order in place to clean up the property and since Midlands Village has purchased it they have done substantial clean up and they will be installing fencing and landscaping. Ms. Barton explained that prior to the full build out there will be temporary outdoor boat and RV storage. She stated that the storage units and the 290 square foot office will be in an area that will have a code controlled gate for after-hours access to the storage units. She explained that the representative and owners will come up with a plan to have improved screening along the side of the property where the Desrosiers live. Ms. Barton went on to explain that this project is located in the Grand Junction Comprehensive Planning area and she showed a site plan with the 3 phases outlined and a rendering of what the storage units will look like. She continued on and showed photos from D ½ Road to the property and explained more about the location of things on the property in conjunction with Chatfield Elementary School. Ms. Barton explained the details regarding the PUD approval criteria in Section F., and in A. of the Land Development Code. She discussed the details about the applicant agreeing to build a sidewalk, explained that a Traffic Impact Analysis has been done and a sign is being proposed. She went on to read the conditions of approval. Questions 42

46 Commissioner Price asked if Ms. Barton had talked with Mr. Desrosiers. Ms. Barton said she has met with him and they discussed that he wants the area by him screened and buffered from his property and they discussed if he could develop his property in any way. Commissioner Erbisch asked about the hours of the self-serve and stated that he doesn t believe these hours would be practical or long enough for access to only be from 8 AM to 5 PM. Ms. Barton explained that the facility will be gate controlled so people can get in with a code after 5 PM and that the 8 to 5 applies to the office hours. Commissioner Erbisch also asked about the possibility of a drainage problem in this area. Ms. Barton stated that the applicant submitted a drainage plan and some changes would be made during the build-out and then the plan would be updated where necessary. Patrick Coleman, County Attorney, recommended that the condition which lists the hours of operation be amended to reflect that the administrative office hours are from 8 AM to 5 PM and that the users of the facility will be able to access through the gate with a code after 5 PM. Ms. Barton will change this to reflect that customers have access to the facility anytime (24/7). Further discussion took place about the property, the layout and the Banks property. 43

47 Applicant/Representative Presentation Tom Logue spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that they will meet with the neighbor to the west and talk about the needs and how to solve the screening issue. Mr. Logue stated that he had met with the County s engineer on the site and discussed the drainage details. Questions Chairman Moreng asked if there were other facilities similar to this one. Mr. Logue said they only have the existing outdoor storage area and the facility is about maxed out right now so there is a need for additional storage due to the large population in that area. Commissioner Wriston asked how they determined the $ impact fee. Ms. Barton explained that there is a use formula that is used by the International Transportation Engineers book, they look for a similar use and compare them and they also use the traffic study that the applicant supplied. Commissioner Hartmann asked if the project will still be feasible if they lose some units to an expanded drainage facility. Mr. Logue stated that they will retain storm water in a basin and when there is a major storm event it will fill up and either evaporate or percolate into the water table in accordance with the manual. Public Comments None Planning Commission Discussion & Vote Chairman Moreng stated that he is in favor of this project and that it will clean up this area. Commissioner Hartmann asked if the county notifies the school district and if a specific person within the school sees the notice. Ms. Barton explained that there is not a direct impact on the school with this project as it relates to additional children but at times the parents are more concerned than school district. Motion: Commissioner Price moved to approve project CUP Midlands Self Storage, Planned Unit Development Amendment with the conditions as amended. Second: Commissioner Wriston Motion: Approval with Conditions 7-0 Additional Announcements Ms. Dannenberger informed the commissioners that Bill Somerville contacted her and has requested a leave of absence but he didn t specify the amount of time he might be out. She said he will be present at the dinner next week but won t be able to attend the workshops or hearings for a while. Chairman Moreng said he thought this was more of a Board of County Commissioners decision and not theirs. Commissioner Price said it was in the bylaws that the Chair could make this determination. Chairman Moreng will contact Bill to discuss this and make a decision after that. Mr. Coleman said everyone needs to be aware that a commissioner has to be present at a specific amount of meetings in order to be allowed to vote on master plans. 44

48 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Commissioner Hartmann moved that the meeting be adjourned. Motion Approved 7-0 Hearing adjourned at 6:50 PM Respectfully Submitted, Chip Page, Secretary 45

49 REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS 46

50 47

51 48

52 PRO MIDLAND SELF STORAGE PUD CONCEPT PLAN Review Agency Comments Comments Due Date: User Otis Darnell Melinda Henderson Robin Carns Review Agency MC ROAD & BRIDGE B Date/Time Comment 7/6/2015 MCDOT has no problems at this time, 1:47:39 PM MC TREASURER 7/6/2015 As of July 6, 2015 property taxes are paid on parcel number :07:26 PM MMH MC ENGINEER OWTS MARK BARSLUND IRR DRAIN AUTH Cpt. Don Hendricks 7/7/2015 The property is served by municipal sewer, no other comments. 9:53:18 AM 7/7/2015 Any activity resulting in disturbance of one (1) acre or more will 11:24:08 AM require a 521 Drainage Authority permit MC SHERIFF 7/8/2015 What steps are being taken to deter theft and burglary? Lighting, 8:57:01 AM fencing, CCTV, security patrols, passkey gates? What's the security plan? Thank you. Daniel Sundstrom MC ADDRESSING 7/13/2015 Address Comment: 11:12:00 AM An address is available once this project is approved. BRIAN WOODS SAN CLIFTON 7/13/2015 From the project narrative, the property would be subject to a 6:06:09 PM change-of-use from residential to commercial. The applicant should contact the District for additional information regarding the proposed project. The District does not object to the proposed storage building concept. CHRIS ROWLAND FIRE CLIFTON 7/20/2015 No comments from Clifton Fire 10:49:48 AM DAVE REINERTSEN MC DEV ENGINEER WATER CLIFTON 7/22/2015 Clifton Water currently provides water service to the existing house 10:39:19 AM on this parcel with a 3/4" meter. The District has no concerns or other comments regarding this request. MC DEV ENGINEER 7/27/2015 4:35:19 PM Mesa County Development Engineering Comments: The following comments should be addressed prior to final concept plan approval: 1. The checklist found in Table 302 of the SWMM must be prepared and included in the report (SWMM 302.1). Items marked with an asterisk are not required in a Conceptual Drainage Report. If the Engineer believes that other items are not required, they can be marked n/a. It is helpful to provide a brief explanation for any items marked n/a. 2. The site is located within the Mesa County Stormwater Urbanized Area, and therefore improvements must address stormwater quality 49

53 per and Section 1600 of the SWMM. 3. Stormwater retention is proposed. Retention is not preferred by the County and is only allowed on a case-by case basis where there are severe limitations on downstream conveyance ( 403.8). Provide justification for allowing on-site retention for the project. The following comments may be addressed as part of final plan approval. 1. When retention is used, requires a 24-hour precipitation of 2.01 inches multiplied by a factor of Retention areas must drain within 48 hours of all storm events up to the 100-year storm event ( ). 3. Provide for emergency overflow of the retention pond per and analyze the overflow path for capacity and downstream impacts. 4. Provide measures to prevent sediment from entering and clogging the retention pond (pre-sedimentation facilities, frequent sediment removal, etc.). 5. Provide an operations and maintenance plan that includes monitoring, reporting, and maintenance requirements. 6. Openings in the concrete wall are proposed to allow for drainage from the paved areas of the site into the retention pond. In the final report please include an analysis of the flow through these openings and provide recommendations for scour protection in the retention pond. 7. Ensure that the grading done at the entrance on D ½ Road prevents runoff from leaving the road and draining on to the site and vice versa. 8. Make provisions for restricting access at the southern connection to the existing fenced storage area. No cut-through traffic will be allowed from Midlands Village to D ½ Road. 9. The site disturbance will be greater than 1.0 acre and the site is located within the Mesa County Stormwater Urbanized Area. A Stormwater Construction Permit will be required from both the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Drainage Authority. SYSTEM ACCOUNT - DO NOT DELETE Christie Barton 8/4/2015 Conceptual Drainage Report Ver 3 uploaded in response to review 6:23:59 AM comments. 11/10/2015 Revised Narrative and Concept Plan received The units 50

54 1:46:53 PM along the west, north and east boundaries will be temperature controlled units with internal hallways for access. Daniel Sundstrom MC ADDRESSING 11/13/2015 Transportation Planner 10:53:42 AM I have uploaded the Signed and Approved NOI for this project. NOI Midland Self Storage, signed & approved.pdf Per the Conditions of Approval; 1. Existing Residential Access to be removed and replaced with new curb and sidewalk once the current resident vacates the resident (phase 3 of this project). It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain all necessary permits to do this work within MC right-of-way. No new or additional residents are allowed to use this existing driveway once vacated. 2. No cut through traffic will be allowed to drive through the Midlands Self Storage site to access Midlands Village private secondary access. 3. As per the Traffic Study the driveway will be located across from the existing bus storage site driveway approximately 271-feet from face of curb, west side of 32 Road, as indicated within the approved Design Exception Exhibit F - Preferred Location. 4. This NOI approves the locations of the connections to the public road system. This NOI is in no way to be construed as approving elements of the commercial site plan not related to the location and concept of the access point. The applicant must obtain approval from the Planning Division prior to construction. Plans shall include, at a minimum the following: a. Road Plans that include driveway improvements and removal of the existing residential driveway. b. Proposed driveway connection to existing D ½ Road c. Driveway detail of the proposed driveway Once approved the applicant can apply for a Road Access Notice to Proceed (NTP). MARK BARSLUND IRR DRAIN AUTH 11/16/2015 Any activity resulting in disturbance of one (1) acre or more will 12:51:58 PM require a 521 and CDPHE permit 51

55 Courtney Campbell MC CODE COMPLIANCE 11/24/2015 Mesa County Code Compliance Services does not indicate any open 10:35:54 AM or active case files pertaining to this property ( Rd). Our Department can release this property as compliant, due to the improvements by Midlands Village Corp meet the terms we had agreed upon in a discussion from September of If the Planner finds an apparent Code violation when they visit the property please let us know and we will investigate. 52

56 53

57 PUBLIC COMMENTS 54

58 55

59 D 1/2 ROAD 32 ROAD ' Drainage, Irrigation, and Utility Easement P Connect Sump Box To 14 ft. Multi-Purpose Easement 1 1/2 in. Irrigation Supply Existing Structure To Be Dedicated Pump and Controls w/ Phase One ft. HVAC HVAC STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY (Retention Basins) 4647 OF SHEET SHEETS Prepared For LEADERSHIP CIRCLE, LLC 1521 Oxbow Drive, Suite 210 Montrose, CO Date: November, 2015 Scale: 1 in. = 30 ft. Contour Interval: 0.5 ft. 30' 15' 0' 30' Prepared By: THOMAS A. LOGUE L a n d D e v e l o p m e n t C o n s u l t a n t 537 Fruitwood Drive, Grand Junction, Colorado East 1/4 Corner Section 15 T.1S.,R.1E.,UteMer. D 1/2 ROAD 210 ft. 21 ft. 15 ft. 30 ft. x 160 ft. Self Storage B Building 30 ft. x 160 ft. Self Storage C Building Phase 1 (A) 30 ft. x 160 ft. Self Storage D Building 76 ft. 32 ROAD To I-70BL To U.S. 50 Existing Driveway To Be Abandoned With Phase 3 24 ft. Phase 1 (B) Phase 2 Existing Fenced Storage and Maintenance Area (Gravel Surface) Blanket Ingress/Egress Easement To Be Granted 141 Planned Unit Development Amendment MIDLANDS SELF STORAGE Mesa County, Colorado LOCATION MAP LAND USE SUMMARY AREA PERCENT USE (sf) OF TOTAL Buildings 45, Office Drives 28, Existing & Proposed Buffers 12, Stormwater Management 6, Inefficiencies 1, Total 94, PHASING PLAN Phase One (A) Office, Entrance and Storage Units Year 1 Phase One (B) RV Storage on Gravel Surface and Stormwater Management Facility Year 2 Phase One (B) Storage Units Year 3-5 Phase Two and Phase Three LEGEND Property Boundary 2.18 ac. (See Improvement Survey) Existing Half Foot Contour xx Proposed Half Foot Contour Proposed 6 ft. Security Fence Existing 6 in. Irrigation Supply Existing Landscaped Berm 6,415 sf Proposed Landscaped Buffer 4,848 sf Direction of Surface Drainage Flow CONCEPT PLAN SITE 141 Proposed Driveway Illuminated 4 ft. by 8 ft. Identification Sign Mounted on a 12 ft. Pole (Typ. 2 Places) Controlled Access Gate 26 ft. 45 ft. x 195 ft. Self Storage F Building Existing Dwelling (Removed With Phase 3) 5 ft. 24 ft. 25 ft. 4 9 ft. ea. 22 ft. 22 ft. 22 ft. Phase 3 Phase 1 (B) Phase 2 HVAC Gate A B C D E F 30 ft. OFFICE 45 ft. x 210 ft. Self Storage A Building 60 ft. x 210 ft. Self Storage E Building Concrete V-Pan (typ. 4 Places Inlet Wall Block Out (typ. 3 Places) Barrier Curb Concrete Surface 2,520 sf Maintenance Building UNIT COUNT BLDG. BLDG. BLDG. BLDG. BLDG. BLDG. % of SIZE TOTAL TOTAL 5 x x x x x x x TOTAL Lancaster Dr. REVISIONS Date Description 56 11/9/2015

60 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING INFORMATION 57

61 MIDLANDS SELF STORAGE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING January 12, 2016 A neighborhood meeting to discuss the pending PUD Amendment and Site Plan application was held at 5:30 p.m. on January 11, 2016 at the Midlands Village Community Center. In addition to Christi Barton, Mesa County Planning Department staff planner, the project representative was in attendance. The meeting concluded at 6:00 p.m. given that there were no other individuals in attendance. Respectfully submitted, Tom Logue, Owners Representative xc: Matt Miles, Midlands Village, LLC. 58

62 APPLICANT INFORMATION 59

63 32 ROAD Project Narrative MIDLANDS SELF STORAGE PUD Concept Plan and Rezone Application May, 2015 Rev. November 9, 2015 SITE DESCRIPTION Address: LOCATION DATA Road Common Location: SW corner D ½ Road and 32 Road (SH 141) Area 2.16 acres Tax Parcel No Aliquot Section: NW ¼ Section 15, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, U.M. Latitude and Longitude: , LOCATION MAP To I-70BL 141 D 1/2 ROAD SITE To U.S

64 EXISTING and SURROUNDING LAND USE The site under concern is almost square in shape; approximately 316 feet in length east/west and 300 feet north/south. Ground cover on the site consists of untended fallow irrigated land. An existing single family dwelling and associated out buildings dominate the property. The surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the subject property are considered to be high intensity. Two primary land uses can be found in the vicinity of the subject property: limited Commercial/Business, mainly north of the site along 32 Road, and residential single family. Chatfield Elementary School is located north of the subject site adjacent to D ½ Road. A 2014 air photo depicting subject site in relationship to the surrounding area can be found on the following page: 61

65 EXISTING LAND USE MAP (2014 Air Photo) D 1/2 ROAD ROAD 141 INDEX 1 Property Boundary, 2.18 ac. 5 2 Dwelling 3 Existing Driveway 4 Landscaped Buffer 5 Existing Storage Area SURROUNDING LAND USE The surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the subject property are considered to range between high and moderate intensity. Land uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject property are depicted on the accompanying Surrounding Land Use Map that shows the configuration of various nearby properties in relationship to the subject site. 62

66 32 ROAD SURROUNDING LAND USE MAP Chatfield Elementary School D 1/2 ROAD SITE Indicates Non-Residential Land Use 141 D ROAD 63

67 LAND USE SUMMARY PERCENT AREA USE OF (sf) TOTAL Buildings 45, Office Drives 28, Existing & Proposed Buffers 12, Stormwater Management 6, Inefficiencies 1, Total 94,

68 LAND USE ZONING According to the Mesa County Land Use Zoning Map, the subject property is zoned: RMF-8. The zone designation is primarily intended to accommodate medium density single family, two- family and low density multi-family residential development. Other land use zones in the vicinity of the site include a PUD district for the existing 60.2 acre Midlands Village development and several non-residential zone designations. FUTURE LAND USE MAP SITE In 2010 the County adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan. A reproduction of the Future Land Use Map within the plan follows. Most of the land surrounding the property is designated as future Residential Medium, or Residential Medium/High. The plan indicates Mixed Use Opportunity Corridor along 32 Road. 65

69 FUTURE LAND USE MAP Mixed Use Opportunity Corridor SITE 66

70 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The proposal calls for the ultimate development of 341 self storage units and a managing office that will be developed in a phased fashion using a PUD rezone designation. Approximately 12.8 percent of the site area is designated as landscaped buffers. 6,725 square feet of the property is devoted as an engineered stormwater management facility. LAND USE SUMMARY PERCENT AREA USE OF (sf) TOTAL Buildings 45, Office Drives 28, Existing & Proposed Buffers 12, Stormwater Management 6, Inefficiencies 1, Total 94, The architectural style of the proposed storage units is illustrated by the following photos: LANDSCAPING The proposal includes a provision for landscaped buffer strips along the properties frontage along the adjoining roadways. The frontage along 32 Road consists of an existing landscaped buffer that will be preserved. The landscaped area along D ½ Road will be installed to complement the existing buffer strip. 67

71 3 ft. Earthen Berm Existing Buffer along 32 Road. ACCESS On May 7, 2015, a conditional Notice of Intent to allow the construction of a new driveway from D ½ Road into the facility was issued by Mesa County. The proposed geometry for the access entrance on D 1/2 Road will be opposite of an existing private drive to a bus terminal. The proposed Concept Plan includes a connection with the existing Midlands Village RV storage area. This connection will allow the Midlands Village residents access without traversing 32 Road and D ½ Road to utilize the facility. A key element of the access plan calls for the removal of an existing driveway to D 1.2 Road approximately 100 feet west of 32 Road during the last development phase. According to a Traffic Study that was provide to Mesa County s Transportation Division, the future traffic movements into and out of the facility are considered to be low. DRAINAGE CONCEPTS Reviews of Flood Rate Insurance Maps indicate the site is not subject to flooding in the event of a 100 year storm. Conceptually, historic drainages patterns will not be altered within the development. All of the site area drainage will be carried on the ground towards a water quality treatment system that is incorporated into an engineered designed retention facility. Water within the retention area will evaporate and percolate into the ground. UTILITY SERVICE An existing eight inch domestic water main owned and operated by the Clifton Water District and a eight inch sanitary sewer main owned and operated by the Clifton Sanitation District are located within the D ½ Road right-of-way adjacent to the subject site. Dry utilities such as, natural gas, electric, and communication lines also lie within the D ½ Road right-of-way. All of these services have available capacity and can be extended into the site. Shares of irrigation water are delivered to an existing structure near the northeast property corner though a series of pipelines. Water for the landscaped areas will be provided by a pump and underground delivery system EMERGENCY SERVICES The property is located in Clifton Fire Protection District. The district provides fire and emergency response services from their facility located in Clifton about 2.0 miles away. Law Enforcement is provided by the Mesa County Sheriff s Department. The Sheriff is assisted by the Colorado State Patrol for I-70 traffic control and responding to and investigating automobile accidents that occur in the neighborhood. Other emergency services are also available from the Mesa County Emergency Management Department. 68

72 EVALUATION OF THE REQUEST A response to the Narrative Guidelines provided by the Mesa County Planning Department is utilized to evaluate the request. GUIDELINE 1. Specifically describe the uses that will be allowed/prohibited in this PUD. It may be helpful to use the Use Table in Chapter 5 of the Land Development Code. Also address use specific standards that will or will not apply to the proposed land uses. RESPONSE - The proposal calls for the ultimate establishment of 392 individual self storage units including a 290 square foot on-site office. The undertaking will be conducted in a phased fashion that allows for the interim parking of RV vehicles and marine craft as each phase is completed. Approximately seven percent of the site is set aside for a Stormwater Management Facility. GUIDELINE 2. State the total number and type of dwelling units and/or the level of non residential development proposed for this PUD, including square footage. RESPONSE: LAND USE SUMMARY PERCENT AREA USE OF (sf) TOTAL Buildings 45, Office Drives 28, Existing & Proposed Buffers 12, Stormwater Management 6, Inefficiencies 1, Total 94, GUIDELINE 3. Are phases proposed and how are they sequenced? RESPONSE: PHASING PLAN YEAR AREA PHASE ac. One (A) Office, Entrance and Storage Units One (B) RV Storage on Gravel Surface and Stormwater Management Facility ac. One (B) Storage Units ac. Phase Two and Phase Three GUIDELINE 4. Describe how the development departs from otherwise applicable standards of the Land Development Code and how the development is an improvement over what would be required under otherwise applicable standards. RESPONSE The proposed development does not depart from any known standards within the Land Development Code. The major improvement is ability to establish a site specific use by utilizing the PUD zone. In other words, no other use could occur on the property without an amendment to the PUD zone, which is subject to public review and comment. 69

73 GUIDELINE 5. Does the proposed development address unique situation or does it represent a substantial benefit to the County over what would be accomplished under otherwise applicable standards of the underlying zoning district? RESPONSE Other than the limited access requirements to D ½ Road, there are no other unique situations. The underlying zone does not allow self storage facilities. The primary benefit to the County is the establishment of a modern self storage facility for use by the area residents. A study was conducted of four Census Tract lying south of the 1-70 Business Loop, north of the Colorado River, between 29 Road and 33 ½ Road. Results indicate that there are approximately 21,223 people living in 8,163 households who would have the opportunity to use the facility. GUIDELINE 6. Describe why the same development could not be accomplished through the use of other techniques, such as rezoning to a non PUD district, variance or administrative adjustments. RESPONSE The same development could occur within a C-1 zone designation. This designation would create difficulties in meeting the goals and policies of the Mesa County Master Plan, discussed within Guideline 9. A comparison between the C-1 zone and the Proposed PUD zone follows: COMPARISON CHART MINIMUM PROPOSED C-1 ZONE STANDARD PD ZONE Lot Size 1 acre 2.16 acre Lot Width n.a 314 feet Street Frontage n.a. 598 feet Street Setback 14 feet 15 feet Side Setback 0 feet 5 feet Rear Setback 0 feet 44 feet Max. Lot Coverage 80% 48% Max. FAR Max Building Size 80,000 sq. ft. 46,100 sq. ft. GUIDELINE 7. Is the proposal significantly different than surrounding land uses in terms of density, intensity, and impacts? How does it mitigate any potential adverse impacts? RESPONSE No existing residential uses adjoin the proposed land use. Adverse impacts are minimal compared to a residential use. IMPACT COMPARISON SUMMARY TABLE MIDLANDS SELF STORAGE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE IMPACT CATEGORY Positive Negative Neutral Positive Negative Neutral Traffic Utility Service Emergency Services On-site Street Maintenance Schools Noise and Lighting Natural Environment Property and Use Taxes 70

74 GUIDELINE 8. Describe the facilities and services available to serve the subject property while maintaining adequate levels of service to existing development. This includes but is not limited to the following: sewage and waste disposal, domestic water, irrigation water [where available], gas, electricity, police and fire protection, roads, and transportation. RESPONSE All facilities and services are existing and can be extended to serve the subject property without creating any adverse impacts. GUIDELINE 9. Does the proposed PUD meet the goals and policies of the Mesa County Master Plan? State which goals and policies it meets. PUDs are required to be in compliance with the County s Master Plan. RESPONSE The 2010 adopted Mesa County Grand Junction Comprehensive Plan s Future Land Use Map indicates the subject property lies within two use categories: Residential-Medium: Includes a mix of residential development types with gross densities of 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre. Single family development will be integrated with of dwelling types. Some multi-family development may be permitted. Mixed Use Opportunity Corridor: This designation lies along 30 Road adjacent to the subject site and is intended to service retail and office commercial uses that serve the immediate surrounding area with no outdoor storage. The plan includes 12 goal and policy statements of which 4 are directly related to this request. GOAL 3: The Comprehensive Plan will create ordered and balanced growth and spread future growth throughout the community. POLICY A. To create large and small "centers" throughout the community that provides services and commercial areas. POLICY B. Create opportunities to reduce the amount of trips generated for shopping and commuting and decrease vehicle miles traveled thus increasing air quality. RESPONSE The proposed use is intended to provide storage for use by the surrounding residential and non-residential community. The request meets Policy A and B. GOAL 7: New development adjacent to existing development (of a different density/unit type/land use type) should transition itself by incorporating appropriate buffering. POLICY A. In making land use and development decisions, the City and County will balance the needs of the community. RESPONSE The request meets this goal a demonstrated in the response to GUIDELINE 5 above. GOAL 8: Create attractive public spaces and enhance the visual appeal of the community through quality development. POLICY E. Enhance and accentuate the City 'gateways' including interstate interchanges, and other major arterial streets leading into the City; RESPONSE The request maintains the existing landscape buffer along 32 Road and includes additional landscaping along D ½ Road. POLICY G. Use outdoor lighting that reduces glare and light spillage, without compromising safety; RESPONSE Most of the interior lighting will be wall mounted and directed downward. 71

75 Goal 12: Being a regional provider of goods and services the City and County will sustain, develop and enhance a healthy, diverse economy. POLICY B. The City and County will provide appropriate commercial and industrial development opportunities. RESPONSE In addition to the Comprehensive Plan, the County and the City of Grand Junction adopted a Pear Park Neighborhood Plan in The subject property lies with the plan boundary. One of the Goals within the plan states, Provide for adequate neighborhood commercial areas that will serve the Pear Park Neighborhood. The request meets that goal. 72

76 D 1/2 ROAD 32 ROAD ' Drainage, Irrigation, and Utility Easement P Connect Sump Box To 14 ft. Multi-Purpose Easement 1 1/2 in. Irrigation Supply Existing Structure To Be Dedicated Pump and Controls w/ Phase One ft. HVAC HVAC STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY (Retention Basins) 4647 OF SHEET SHEETS Prepared For LEADERSHIP CIRCLE, LLC 1521 Oxbow Drive, Suite 210 Montrose, CO Date: November, 2015 Scale: 1 in. = 30 ft. Contour Interval: 0.5 ft. 30' 15' 0' 30' Prepared By: THOMAS A. LOGUE L a n d D e v e l o p m e n t C o n s u l t a n t 537 Fruitwood Drive, Grand Junction, Colorado East 1/4 Corner Section 15 T.1S.,R.1E.,UteMer. D 1/2 ROAD 210 ft. 21 ft. 15 ft. 30 ft. x 160 ft. Self Storage B Building 30 ft. x 160 ft. Self Storage C Building Phase 1 (A) 30 ft. x 160 ft. Self Storage D Building 76 ft. 32 ROAD To I-70BL To U.S. 50 Existing Driveway To Be Abandoned With Phase 3 24 ft. Phase 1 (B) Phase 2 Existing Fenced Storage and Maintenance Area (Gravel Surface) Blanket Ingress/Egress Easement To Be Granted 141 Planned Unit Development Amendment MIDLANDS SELF STORAGE Mesa County, Colorado LOCATION MAP LAND USE SUMMARY AREA PERCENT USE (sf) OF TOTAL Buildings 45, Office Drives 28, Existing & Proposed Buffers 12, Stormwater Management 6, Inefficiencies 1, Total 94, PHASING PLAN Phase One (A) Office, Entrance and Storage Units Year 1 Phase One (B) RV Storage on Gravel Surface and Stormwater Management Facility Year 2 Phase One (B) Storage Units Year 3-5 Phase Two and Phase Three CONCEPT PLAN SITE 141 Proposed Driveway Illuminated 4 ft. by 8 ft. Identification Sign Mounted on a 12 ft. Pole (Typ. 2 Places) Controlled Access Gate 26 ft. 45 ft. x 195 ft. Self Storage F Building Existing Dwelling (Removed With Phase 3) 5 ft. 24 ft. 25 ft. 4 9 ft. ea. 22 ft. 22 ft. 22 ft. Phase 3 Phase 1 (B) Phase 2 HVAC Gate LEGEND Property Boundary 2.18 ac. (See Improvement Survey) Existing Half Foot Contour xx Proposed Half Foot Contour Proposed 6 ft. Security Fence Existing 6 in. Irrigation Supply Existing Landscaped Berm 6,415 sf Proposed Landscaped Buffer 4,848 sf Direction of Surface Drainage Flow 25 ft. Pole Mounted Luminarie Full Cutoff Nighttime Friendly Criteria Wall Mounted Luminarie Meet Nighttime Friendly Criteria A B C D E F A A 30 ft. OFFICE 45 ft. x 210 ft. Self Storage A Building 60 ft. x 210 ft. Self Storage E Building Concrete V-Pan (typ. 4 Places Inlet Wall Block Out (typ. 3 Places) Barrier Curb Concrete Surface 2,520 sf Maintenance Building UNIT COUNT BLDG. BLDG. BLDG. BLDG. BLDG. BLDG. % of SIZE TOTAL TOTAL 5 x x x x x x x TOTAL Lancaster Dr. REVISIONS Date Description 73 11/17/2015

77 74

78 MIDLANDS SELF STORAGE Pole Mounted Light Detail 75

79 MIDLANDS SELF STORAGE Wall Mounted Light Detail 76

80 RESOLUTION 77

81 RESOLUTION NO. Planning Department No CP APPROVAL OF MIDLANDS VILLAGE PUD AMENDMENT FOR A SELF-STORAGE AND OFFICE FACILITY LOCATED AT 435 & ROAD, CLIFTON WHEREAS, Midlands Village I, LLC, requested approval for an amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) land use approval for the Midlands Village Mobile Home Park to allow a self-storage facility with office; located as shown on attached Exhibit "A", Location Map; and more particularly described on attached Exhibit "B", Legal Description, and WHEREAS, the attached Exhibit C is the site plan for the Self-Storage Units; and WHEREAS, the staff recommendation was contained in a project review dated August 12, 2015 and amended December 7, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Mesa County Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions at their December 17, 2015 public hearing; and WHEREAS, the public hearing before the Mesa County Board of County Commissioners was held on February 9, NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF MESA FINDS AS FOLLOWS: THAT public notice requirements of Section of the Mesa County Land Development Code (2000, as amended) have been met. THAT the Midlands Village Self-Storage PUD Amendment meets or can meet (with compliance with conditions) the applicable Approval Criteria for Planned Unit Developments (Section 3.7 and Section 4.4.1) and the General Approval Criteria (Section ) of the Mesa County Land Development Code (2000, as amended), including consistency with intergovernmental agreements and the Mesa County Master Plan. THAT this request is in accordance with the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Mesa County. Page 1 of 4 78

82 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN THE COUNTY OF MESA, STATE OF COLORADO: THAT the Midlands Village Self-Storage and Office facility PUD Amendment is approved with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments not in conflict with the conditions of approval shall be resolved with the final plan. 2. A Site Development Plan shall be recorded for the project after a Final Plan review. 3. The applicant shall submit a Sign Permit application for the monument sign. 4. A Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) of $6, is required to be paid to the Planning Division prior to commercial site plan approval. 5. Outdoor lighting shall be full cut-off light fixtures in conformance with Section of the Land Development Code. 6. Right of Way dedication along D½ Road is required to match the Road Petition recorded in Road Book 2 at Page 153 File Number Fencing and landscaping for screening and buffering are to be installed along D½ Road in conformance with the Stipulation and Motion for Order of the Banks property by June 1, A sidewalk along the east side of Shire Drive shall be constructed from Lancaster Drive to D½ Road. Construction drawings shall be included in the Final Plan application, and a Development Improvement Agreement is required. The sidewalk shall be completed within one year of Final Plan approval. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 9 th day of February, ATTEST: Rose Pugliese, Chair Board of Mesa County Commissioners Sheila Reiner Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Page 2 of 4 79

83 Exhibit A Location Map Exhibit B Legal Descriptions: and Page 3 of 4 80

84 (Legal Description, continued) Lot 2, Block 4 Midlands Village Filing One, and an undivided interest in Outlot A, B & C Open Space and that part of Outlot D Open Space lying in Clifton Sanitation District No. 2 and private roads. Exhibit C Site Plan Page 4 of 4 81

85 PROJECT REVIEW 82

86 MESA COUNTY OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT Building Inspection Code Compliance Engineering Environmental Health Fleet Planning Regional Transportation Planning Road and Bridge Solid Waste Management Traffic Public Works 200 S. Spruce Street P.O. Box 20, Grand Junction, Colorado Ph (970) Fax (970) PROJECT REVIEW December 21, 2015 I CPA AUBURNE II SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN APPEAL Property Owner: David and Amy Ward, and Sonshine IV Constr. & Development LLC Representative: Jim Atkinson, Vortex Engineering, Inc. Location: Road and 1850 Aerie Court, Fruita (19 & M ½ Roads, and Aerie Ct) Parcel #: and Zoning: AFT Planner: Christie Barton, , christie.barton@mesacounty.us Request: Appeal of an administrative decision for a condition of approval for a concept plan application for an eight-lot subdivision. The basis of the condition was the requirement of a 6 water line for fire flow as required in the Density by Design Toolbox in Section of the Land Development Code allowed the applicants to achieve eight lots instead of four lots. Mesa County required the 6 water line be extended to the northern property line, but Ute Water required that the 6 water line be extended along the frontage of the property. Recommendation: Uphold Staff Decision for the administrative condition of approval in the Concept Plan Application and Approve the Resolution Location and Zoning Map: 83

87 II. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Zoning within the 2,500 foot public notification area: AFT Land Uses within the 2,500 foot public notification area: Residential Agricultural Applicable Area Plans Rural Master Plan o Rural/Agricultural 10 (R/A 10) III. PROJECT HISTORY: Albertson Ranch Simple Land Division C Spring Hollow SK1 Auburne Subdivision SK1, CP1 & FP1 Master Plan Amendment MP (denied) Auburne II Subdivision Concept Plan CP IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Auburne II Subdivision Concept Plan was approved October 19, 2015 and recorded on October 21, 2015 under Reception # The approval included a requirement to extend the domestic water line to the property as part of the Density by Design Toolbox used to achieve the five-acre average density for the project. Fire flow is a mandatory provision for the Density by Design Toolbox, with a 6 water line required as an infrastructure improvement. Since two properties were involved in the subdivision, the Density by Design Toolbox was reviewed for both properties. The domestic water line was installed in the original Auburne Subdivision. The Ward property proposed extending the water line to their northern property line, which included a canal crossing. The Wards had met with Ute Water staff before starting the subdivision process, and no water line upgrade was required for the additional three lots. Ute Water staff then reviewed the amended design and determined that the water line be extended further to the south along the entire frontage of the property. A copy of the entire Toolbox is included in the hearing binder. Density by Design Toolbox Auburne Estates II Concept Plan Points Available Minimum Provisions Fire Flow: Fire flow (minimum 6" line) is provided to the property - Water line (minimum 6" line) accepted by the fire and water districts to provide fire flow is extended to the site a distance of 1/2 mile or less. 50 Reservation for Future Development: A portion of the site is reserved in a single larger building lot. A site plan will be provided to show options for future development, access and circulation: 45% or more of the site is reserved for future development until applicable revision or amendment of the Master Plan

88 Optional Provisions Wildlife corridors and habitat as identified by the Colorado Division of Wildlife and/or floodplains/floodways mapped by FEMA or by the developer, as required by County floodplain regulations, are preserved in perpetuity: 5 acres or less 20 Public/Private Amenities An Energy Star rating will be attained in every home in the development. 30 Shared driveways are paved and dedicated to the HOA for private maintenance. 40 Total points earned = 185 Jim Atkinson of Vortex Engineering filed an appeal that is included in this packet. He states the reasons for the formal written appeal of the administrative decision and requests the applicant not be required to install the 6 water line. If Mesa County does not require the installation of the domestic water line, Ute Water won t require the extension along the entire frontage of the property. The applicant waived the requirement to hold the public hearing within the required 30-day time frame from submittal of the appeal and requested an extension of time. Auburne II Subdivision Concept Plan: Outlot A, Auburne Subdivision Ward Property 3 85

89 IV. BOARD AUTHORITY Appeals A. Appeals of Planning Director s Decision Appeals of the actions of the Planning Director regarding Major Subdivision Concept Plans and Final Plans may be taken to the Board of County Commissioners by filing an appeal with the Planning Director within thirty (30) days of the Planning Director s decision on the matters. Appeals will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in a public workshop with comments presented to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners shall consider the appeal as a new matter, and act to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. The required notice and approval criteria shall be the same as required of the original action before the Planning Director; however, evidence shall be weighed independently by the Board. If more than one (1) appeal is filed concerning a single decision, the appeals may be consolidated into a single appeal for review at the discretion of the Board. V. PUBLIC COMMENTS: No comments have been received as of the date of this review. VI. PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends the Board of County Commissioners uphold the Staff decision to approve the Concept Plan application with conditions and to approve the resolution. VII. MCPC WORKSHOP: (12/10/16): Recommendation of denial of the appeal with the additional information that the original application requirement of the water line extension to the northern property line be maintained and that Ute Water s requirement to extend the water line to the southern property boundary is unreasonable. Vote: 7-0, with Phil Jones abstaining. Update on project February 3, 2016: Vortex Engineering is working with Ute Water to come to an agreement. A decision is expected by Friday, February 5, VIII. BOCC ACTION: (2/9/2016): 4 86

90 87

91 88

92 89

93 90

94 91

95 92

96 93

97 94

98 95

99 96

100 97

101 98

102 99

103 100

104 Ute Water Conservancy District Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Feet Map Notes: 101 Geographic Information System

105 HEARING NOTICE 102

106 2500 ft buffer Parcels " Parcel/Notification Map Auburne II Subdivision Appeal CPA December 28, 2015 Notification Buffer Legend Miles

107 PARCEL_NUM OWNER MAILING CITY ST ZIP ABBOTT GARY 1852 AERIE CT FRUITA CO AKUMAL LLC 901 CROWN CT FRUITA CO ALFSTAD STACY K 1855 AERIE CT FRUITA CO ALLEN GRADY P 1925 M RD FRUITA CO APPEL MICHAEL D 1856 AERIE CT FRUITA CO AVERETT WILLIAM D 1826 STAMPEDE CT FRUITA CO BARBATO MICHAEL 1396 HORSESHOE DR FRUITA CO BATES ALBERT R 1875 M RD FRUITA CO BEHUNIN LONNIE ALBERT 1407 BRIDLE PATH CT FRUITA CO BLASDEL JAMES GLEN 1803 M RD FRUITA CO BONAR BRIAN 2428 OAK CANYON PL ESCONDIDO CA BRADLEY DOYLE S /2 RD FRUITA CO BRIM DAVID L 1828 STAMPEDE CT FRUITA CO BURTARD DAVID G RD GRAND JUNCTION CO BYNUM CRAIG R 1853 AERIE CT FRUITA CO CARPENTER JIM D /2 RD FRUITA CO CARRUTH WAYNE H 1408 PONY TRAIL CT FRUITA CO CHARLES LEONARD /2 RD FRUITA CO CHRONOS HOMES LLC 341 HARTFORD CT FRUITA CO CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST PO BOX SALT LAKE CITY UT CIMMS RICHARD C 1371 HORSESHOE DR FRUITA CO COPELAND MITCHELL T RD FRUITA CO CORDOVA JOSEPH 4810 LYCEUM DR SAN ANTONIO TX CORK DEAN 1411 BRIDLE PATH CT FRUITA CO CREEL JAMES CRAIG 1854 AERIE CT FRUITA CO CROOKS DEBORAH KAY RD FRUITA CO CURRENT JAMES M /2 RD FRUITA CO DANIELS MICHAEL L RD FRUITA CO DEBOGORSKI MARK 1364 HORSESHOE DR FRUITA CO DEER CROSSING DEVELOPM1909 N RD FRUITA CO DIXON DANNY W 1875 HIGH PT FRUITA CO FAIRCHILD ROBERT A 1387 HORSESHOE DR FRUITA CO FICKEN ROGER R 1380 HORSESHOE DR FRUITA CO FIFE CARMEN JEAN 609 RAMBLING RD GRAND JUNCTION CO FLEWELLING WANDA L RD FRUITA CO GARDNER CHERYL J 1907 N RD FRUITA CO GAUDERN CHERROLL 1859 AERIE CT FRUITA CO GEIGER JUSTIN B RD FRUITA CO GIST WENDE J 1929 N RD FRUITA CO GODFREY SCOTT E 1373 HORSESHOE DR FRUITA CO GRAVES MEGAN W 1360 HORSESHOE DR FRUITA CO GRAY RONALD 1840 STAMPEDE CT FRUITA CO HAMAKER ANDREW K 1871 HIGH PT FRUITA CO HANSEN DAVID J 1908 M RD FRUITA CO HARRIS MARK T RD GRAND JUNCTION CO HILLARD ALAN 1827 STAMPEDE CT FRUITA CO

108 HIYITA HOLDINGS LLC 4 INTERMEDIATE UNIT DRCOAL CENTER PA HO MICHAEL E 1957 N RD FRUITA CO HOLLISTER STEVEN L /2 RD FRUITA CO HORSESHOE RIDGE HOMEO2452 I ROAD GRAND JUNCTION CO INSKEEP CARLA C 1381 HORSESHOE DR FRUITA CO INSKEEP CARLA C TRUST 1381 HORSESHOE DR FRUITA CO JAEGER RANDY G PO BOX 985 SILT CO JANOWITZ CLINT R 1410 PONY TRAIL CT FRUITA CO JERRY & ROCHELLE TUFLY L1376 HORSESHOE DR FRUITA CO KAMPLAIN THOMAS E /2 RD FRUITA CO KELLEY HELEN E TRUSTEE 1909 N RD FRUITA CO KREY HELEN 2015 OVERLOOK DR GRAND JUNCTION CO KREY MAX A 2015 OVERLOOK DR GRAND JUNCTION CO LANDINI CARL S RD FRUITA CO LEANY ARVAN JEFFRY RD FRUITA CO LEANY ARVAN RODNEY RD FRUITA CO LEDBETTER DAVID K 1833 STAMPEDE CT FRUITA CO LEDBETTER JAMES M /2 RD FRUITA CO LENHART EDISON S RD FRUITA CO LEVINSON DOUGLAS 1368 HORSESHOE DR FRUITA CO LEWIS GORDON 1933 N RD FRUITA CO LYONS EDMOND H 2431 SPANISH HILLS CT GRAND JUNCTION CO MADDUX DWIGHT L SR /2 RD FRUITA CO MCALLISTER TROY W 668 DOVE RANCH RD BAYFIELD CO MCCURRY MATTHEW W RD FRUITA CO MCFARLAND KELLY 1857 AERIE CT FRUITA CO MEINHOLD THEODORE E 1402 BRIDLE PATH CT FRUITA CO MESAROS NICHOLAS P TRU1353 SMOKEY DR FRUITA CO MOON DAVID J /2 RD FRUITA CO MOON JOHN W TRUSTEE /2 RD FRUITA CO MOORE H DALE TRUST 1822 M 3/4 RD FRUITA CO MOSS LAWRENCE K RD FRUITA CO NOLAN STEVE R 1403 BRIDLE PATH CT FRUITA CO ONDRUS JOSEPH FRANK JR1383 HORSESHOE DR FRUITA CO PACE JOSEPH S PO BOX 301 FRUITA CO PALMER EMMETT A 1914 M 1/2 RD FRUITA CO PANKONIN JAMES & JUDIT 8649 E 148TH CIR THORNTON CO PAUL WINFRIED C 1356 SMOKEY DR FRUITA CO PETERSEN TRUST RD FRUITA CO PIFER L JOE PO BOX 1831 GRAND JUNCTION CO PITCHFORD LAURENCE E RD FRUITA CO POTTER DELOS DEMONT PO BOX 29 FRUITA CO RAMOS ELVIRA 1825 M RD FRUITA CO REAL WEALTH CREATIONS-1381 WARNER AVE STE C TUSTIN CA REID ERSEL E /2 RD FRUITA CO RISTO DIETER H RD FRUITA CO ROSEN DANIEL M RD FRUITA CO

109 SCHLEPER GREG C 1920 M RD FRUITA CO SCHMALZ DAVID D 1930 M RD FRUITA CO SEAL ROBERT S /2 RD FRUITA CO SELOVER KATHLEEN M 1359 HORSESHOE DR FRUITA CO SHANDONY MICHAEL J 1848 M RD FRUITA CO SITTNER CONSTRUCTION L 1386 HORSESHOE DR FRUITA CO SMITH RICHARD D JR 1363 HORSESHOE DR FRUITA CO SONSHINE IV CONSTRUCTIO ROAD GRAND JUNCTION CO SOUTHAM NATHAN A 1355 SMOKEY DR FRUITA CO STANTON ROBERT J 1388 HORSESHOE DR FRUITA CO STIEG BRAD /2 RD FRUITA CO STIMATZE RUSSELL 455 PHYLLIS DR FRUITA CO STOCK PHILLIP JOSEPH 1844 M RD FRUITA CO STOLLE MARGARET J 1367 HORSESHOE DR FRUITA CO SULLIVAN CASEY DEE 501 GALENA DR FRUITA CO SWEET JOHN L 1355 DUSTY DR FRUITA CO TRENT GREGORY W SR RD FRUITA CO TROYER GARY E /2 ROAD FRUITA CO TRUJILLO JEFFERY J RD FRUITA CO TUFFIN SUZANNA M /2 RD FRUITA CO TURNER DENNIS E 1821 M 3/4 RD FRUITA CO UNREIN MICHAEL W 1408 BRIDLE PATH CT FRUITA CO WARD DAVID A RD FRUITA CO WIMBERLY FAMILY TRUST /2 RD FRUITA CO JIM ATKINSON, VORTEX EN2394 PATTERSON RD #20GRAND JUNCTION CO

110 MCPC WORKSHOP MINUTES 107

111 Mesa County Planning Commission Workshop December 10, :45 pm, MCCS Conference Room 40, 200 S. Spruce Street Members Present: Phil Jones, Christi Flynn, Joe Moreng, David Hartmann, George Skiff, Ron Wriston, Bill Somerville and Bob Erbish CP Orient Subdivision III Concept Plan a. Planner: Christie Barton b. Comments: What was the size of the gravel excavation? 10 acres Has it been closed and reclaimed? Yes c. Recommendation: Phil Jones recommended approval with conditions, and Bill Somerville seconded. d. Vote: CP Snoke Building Envelope Removal Concept Plan a. Planner: Christie Barton b. Comments: Does the proposed building meet setbacks? It can (reviewed when they submit a Planning Clearance). c. Recommendation: Bob Erbish recommended approval, and Ron Wriston seconded. d. Vote: CP Lynwood Estates Concept Plan a. Planner: Jeff Hofman b. Comments: Is this in the 100 year floodplain? No, it s in an area of high groundwater What about the size of the lots for Phase 2? The canal is on an easement, not in fee ownership, so the minimum one-acre lot size can be met. They need to have sufficient room for a leach field and replacement field. Ted Ciavonne, representative, said the neighbors were trying to reduce the number of lots in Phase 2 to two lots instead of 3 lots. Foxtail is extended to the west does it require a turnaround? Yes, it has a hammerhead turnaround, with the south half on private property, which will be temporary until Foxtail is extended in the future. What if the property owners put up a gate? There will be a plat restriction or note on the plat and site plan prohibiting that. Is Foxtail a public road? Yes. City or County maintenance? County Currently there is a 20 wide right of way on the 25 ¼ Road alignment. The portion through Greystone Estates has been vacated, and the applicant was going to vacate their section but they need the right of way for the hammerhead turnaround. 108

112 Where are the utilities from? Greystone Estates. Are they underground? Yes. Are they sufficient size for extension for this subdivision? The final utility designs will be done at the Final Plan phase. Grand Valley Power has single phase power available for the subdivision. Is a fire hydrant going in? Yes. Ute Water also has a major transmission line in H Road. What happens to the lot sizes after right of way is dedicated for H Road? The dedication will be on this plat, so the lot sizes won t change. Additional right of way or construction easements may be needed if a bridge is used to cross the canal and the wash to the west of the property. Have access permits been issued? Yes. Will the driveway north of H Road be a safe location? H Road is not being built at this time; it will be a capital project in the future as it is an arterial road. We don t want the driveway to be a problem. It will be reviewed when the road is built. c. Recommendation: Bob Erbish recommended approval with conditions, and George Skiff seconded. d. Vote: TXT Domestic Livestock Planner: Kaye Simonson Briefing item, no recommendation needed. The Planning Commissioners were concerned about prohibiting roosters CPA Auburne II Subdivision Appeal a. Planner: Christie Barton b. Comments: Is there a precedent for the water line extension? Yes, the Gobbos' were required to extend a water line for a project that didn t move forward. An additional 1400 is a huge expense. Who owns the water line? Ute will own it. Is the water line in the right of way? Yes. The water line should be upgraded as per our requirements, but the extension is new. It s a fire protection issue. When the Density by Design Toolbox was developed, the fire and water districts insisted that we help them get fire flow. The water line to the property is a minimum provision; they can t pick and choose about it. If there is a fire, is the 3 line sufficient? People who live in the country have a longer time for the fire departments to arrive. State statutes require consideration for fire protection, and subdivisions need to provide water. A 6 water line is expensive. Fire departments need adequate supplies to fight fires, water trucks can only do so much. Individuals having to spend the money to put these in is a problem. Jim Atkinson of Vortex Engineering said the proposed water line is 8, which is now the requirement, so our 6 water line requirement is a bit outdated. The fire departments prefer fire suppression sprinklers, which allow people to get out in time. The existing 3 line is adequate for the additional 3 houses on 19 Road and provides sufficient flow for residential fire suppression sprinklers. 109

113 Auburne Subdivision has a 10 water line installed. To extend that line would involve crossing the wash between the two properties. The cost for the additional 1400 is approximately $150,000 for the additional 3 houses on 19 Road. Ute won t pay for it or for a portion of it. If the County s requirement for the 6 water line goes away, then Ute Water won t require the 8 water line installation. Are there legal issues here, if someone s house burns down? How about a compromise? Ute Water takes what the County requires since we are acting on their behalf. They are getting an upgrade, but they say they would rather have nothing. A 6 water line would help with pressure to the south. Kim Kerk said the Wards did their homework before they got started with this. Ute Water told them they didn t need the water line upgrade. The proposal was for the three new houses to have residential fire suppression sprinklers. How much can the County do? Uphold or deny the appeal; they could request to change the mandatory water line extension to something else in the Density by Design point system. Can we do a variance with the Density by Design Toolbox? If we can uphold what was originally approved, then it should go ahead. The applicant wants us to change the approval so they don t need to extend the water line approximately 2100 feet. Can we make an exception? We would need a reason. David Ward said that Lower Valley Fire Department encourages sprinkler systems to be installed in houses, and Ute Water says the existing 3 water line in 19 Road has the capacity to sprinkle the three new homes. He requests that we waive the requirement to bring the water line to the northern property line. We need to sit down with Ute Water and discuss this. Ute Water changed their comments from their original review comments once they found out that the County was requiring a water line extension. The water line should be extended for health and safety reasons but there should be some compromise. c. Recommendation: Bill Somerville recommended denial of the appeal with the additional information that the original application requirement of the water line extension to the northern property line be maintained and that Ute Water s requirement to extend the water line to the southern property boundary is unreasonable. Christi Flynn seconded. d. Vote: 7-0, with Phil Jones abstaining. Workshop adjourned at 7:30 pm. 110

114 REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS 111

115 1/4/2016 Mesa County Project Plan Review History Project Number PRO Project Name AUBURNE II CONCEPT PLAN APPEAL Type APPEAL Subtype ADMIN DECISION Status REVIEW COMPLETE Owner SONSHINE IV CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT L Applicant MINDA ALBRIGHT Applied Approved Closed Expired Status 11/24/ /4/2015 VA KK Site Address City, State Zip FRUITA, CO Zoning Subdivision Tract Block Lot No Parcel No General Plan Type of Review / Notes Contact Sent Due Received Elapsed Status Remarks CITY FRUITA <none> 12/4/ /18/2015 FIRE LOWER VALLEY <none> 12/4/ /18/2015 IRR GRAND VALLEY <none> 12/4/ /18/2015 IRR GV DRAINAGE <none> 12/4/ /18/2015 MC BUILDING DEPT <none> 12/4/ /18/2015 MC DEV ENGINEER <none> 12/4/ /18/2015 WATER UTE <none> 12/4/ /18/2015 Project Reviews.rpt Page 1 of 1 112

116 PRO AUBURNE II SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN APPEAL Review Agency Comments Comments Due Date: User FIRE MARSHALL FRUITA TIM RYAN - GVDD MC DEV ENGINEER Review Agency FIRE LOWER VALLEY IRR GV DRAINAGE MC DEV ENGINEER Date/Time Comment 12/8/2015 The 3 inch fire lane for residential sprinkler use is subject to 8:35:02 AM hydraulic calculations by a Colorado P.E. The calculations would need to show that the required pressures and volume were available at each lot to support a sprinkler system. 12/11/2015 GVDD has no comment 8:34:31 AM 12/16/2015 No comments. 9:41:53 AM - MC Development Engineering JIM DAUGHERTY WATER UTE 12/17/2015 An 8-inch waterline extension along the full length of the 9:52:54 AM development property in 19 Road to replace an existing 3-inch waterline leaves little or no doubt that domestic and fire protection needs are met for the development and the District s existing customers within this area. The waterline extension requirement was outlined in prior discussions with the Developer and their representative and is consistent with District Policies. Fire protection includes fire hydrants and/or sprinklers for fire suppression. If residential sprinklers served from the existing waterline are proposed, the District will require a Colorado registered Professional Engineer with relevant experience perform the hydraulic design calculations for review and approval prior to District acceptance of the proposed development. The additional domestic demand from the proposed development will have impacts on the performance of the existing waterline facilities in the area that may need to be further evaluated. At a minimum, the District may consider an 8-inch waterline extension to the development property as previously proposed that helps meet the County Incentive-Based criteria provided the hydraulic design supports the concept. 113

117 NO PUBLIC COMMENTS 114

118 APPLICANT INFORMATION 115

119 116

120 117