MESA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 28, 2004, PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES Chairman Bruce Kresin called a scheduled hearing of the Mesa County Planning Commission to order at 7:01 p.m. Chairman Kresin led the Pledge of Allegiance. The hearing was held in the Public Hearing Room, Mesa County Courthouse, 544 Rood Avenue, Grand Junction, Colorado. In attendance, representing the Mesa County Planning Commission, were: Terri Binder, John Dempsey, George Domet, Bruce Kresin, Bruce Noble, and Janie VanWinkle. In attendance, representing the Mesa County Department of Planning and Development, were: Kurt Larsen, Linda Dannenberger, Christie Barton, Jim Hinderaker, Jim Komatinsky, and Dahna Raugh. Kristy Pauley was present to record the minutes. There were approximately 7 citizens present throughout the hearing. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The approval of minutes was postponed until Commissioner Binder arrived. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA None. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. At this time, Commissioner Binder joined the hearing. WITHDRAWN ITEMS 2004-016 CUP1 CAMEO GRAVEL PIT Property Owners: Snowcap Coal Company, Inc. Location: 3968, 3970, I 9/10 Road, Palisade This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a sand and gravel operation on approximately 45.8 acres. 1
2004-139 ZM1 CORNERSTONE CHRISTIAN SCHOOL ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Property Owners: Cornerstone Christian School Location: 3099 F Road, Grand Junction This is a request to amend the Official Zoning Map to reinstate 3099 F Road as Single Family Residential, 4-units per acre (RSF-4), as approved with Resolution MCM 85-46 instead of Planned Unit Development (PUD) as shown currently. CONSENT ITEMS 2004-136 ZM1 RIVERWOOD BUSINESS PARK ZONE MAP CORRECTION Property Owners: Westwood Rental LLC Location: 416 32 Road, Clifton This is a request to amend the Official Zoning Map to reinstate 416 32 Road as B-2 (Concentrated Business District) as approved by Resolution instead of Planned Unit Development (PUD) as shown currently. Chairman Kresin asked for any comments for this item from the Commission or the audience. There were none. 2004-033 PP1 SPAHMER SUBDIVISION Property Owners: James & Kimberly Spahmer Location: 1848 M Road, Fruita This is a request for a 2-lot re-subdivision on approximately 11.8 acres. Chairman Kresin asked for comments for this item from the Commission or the audience. Commissioner Binder asked about the City of Fruita s comments and whether the 3 mile area of influence was taken into consideration by staff. Christie Barton said the City s comments are taken into consideration but the County zoning regulations have to be followed as well. The application fits the criteria of the Code and is consistent with the County s Master Plan. Mr. Larsen noted the Fruita 2020 Plan has identified 1 lot per 10 acres, but the County s Master Plan shows 5-35 acres in that area. MOTION: Commissioner Binder moved item 2004-136 ZM1 Riverwood Business Park Zone Map Correction and item 2004-033 PP1 Spahmer Subdivision be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with recommendation of approval with conditions set forth by staff. Commissioner Noble seconded the motion. A vote was called and approved, 6-0. 2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Binder presented the minutes from 9/23/04 and 9/30/04 for approval. MOTION: Commissioner VanWinkle moved to approve the minutes as written. Commissioner Noble seconded the motion. A vote was called and approved, 6-0. HEARING ITEM Chairman Kresin explained the hearing process. 2003-285 PP2 LONGVIEW RANCHETTES SUBDIVISION Property Owners: Ward & Priscilla Studt Location: 1625 & 1627 16 Road, Loma This is a request for a major subdivision to divide approximately 223 acres into 10 residential lots in the AFT district. Staff s Presentation: Jim Komatinsky, Senior Planner, entered into the record the project file 2003-285 PP2 and staff report, Mesa County Land Development Code, Mesa Countywide Land Use Plan, and the PowerPoint presentation, labeled Exhibit A. A location map was presented. Mr. Komatinsky explained this application previously went before the Planning Commission as Longview Estates about 5 months ago. The applicant withdrew the application after that hearing and reduced the project from 16 to 10 lots. A preliminary plat was shown. The area of the residential lots was shown. Surrounding land use is all zoned AFT. Most of this property is presently in agricultural production with the exception of a hilly area in the northwest corner. An aerial photo and color photos of the subject property were presented. Approval criteria, Section 3.6.3.F(1-6), Section 6.3.2 (A-I), and Section 3.1.17(A-C) were reviewed by Mr. Komatinsky. Staff s Recommendation: Denial. The proposed density of this project is not supported by the Mesa County Master Plan and is not consistent with the surrounding densities of the area. In addition, this site is located a significant distance from established infrastructure such as the Fruita 201 Boundary (4 miles), Lower Valley Fire Station (7 miles), and Urban Growth Boundary (10 miles). Questions: Commissioner Dempsey asked if there were any gas lines in the area. Mr. Komatinsky indicated he could ask the petitioner. Commissioner Noble asked why the criterion in Section 3.1.17.A.4 wasn t met. Mr. Komatinsky said it is not consistent with densities set forth in the Master Plan. Commissioner Binder asked when you have irrigation does that affect whether you have prime soils. Mr. Komatinsky said no. Many soils are identified prime if irrigated. In this 3
case, most of the soils are not the quality of soils that are considered prime, even if irrigated. Petitioner s Presentation: Patrick Green, LANDesign, 244 N. 7 th Street. Mr. Green presented a PowerPoint presentation, labeled Petitioner s Exhibit A and a petition labeled Petitioner s Exhibit B. Mr. Green noted of the 23 items that were points of acceptance, there are only 3 that planning staff felt this project did not meet. These were: 1. The proposal is significantly different from surrounding land use in terms of density, intensity and adverse impacts (Section 3.6.3.F.4) 2. Impacts adjoining agricultural operations (Section 6.3.2.G) 3. Proposal is not compatible with Section 3.1.17.A of the Mesa County Land Development Code In response to #1 and #3, Mr. Green stated the density as proposed is 10 lots on 223.6 acres for an average density of 22.3 acres/lot, and meets AFT standards. All lots are greater than 5 acres. Clustering of lots along the existing road maintains the majority of the property for agriculture, and produces the least impact to abutting agriculture. In response to #2, Mr. Green responded adjoining larger agricultural owners have signed a letter of approval for not impacting agricultural operations. New lots border small adjoining properties and would be compatible in use. Mr. Green summarized by stating the development is similar to the adjoining properties to the north and south in size and nature. Owners of larger agricultural parcels in the area are in favor of the development. County services already serve this area. Clustering of lots preserves 157 acres for agricultural use and lots are greater than 5 acres. Questions: Commissioner VanWinkle asked if this was in the Loma/Mack planning area. Chairman Kresin indicated it was outside that area. Commissioner Dempsey asked about gas lines. Mr. Green said there were lines in the area. Commissioner Binder asked how far the development was from the City of Fruita. Mr. Green indicated it is 7 miles from the fire station. Commissioner Noble asked about the direction of the adjoining lots (those who signed the petition) and their addresses. Mr. Green said the lower lots have a P Road address. Some will have addresses further away than their adjoining parcel. He also asked if at a 5 acre density they are still meeting the recommended level of density in that area. Mr. Green said they are actually above the 5 acre average per lot. Commissioner Noble asked about plans for the 157 acre parcel. Mr. Green indicated they had no plans for it at this time. 4
Chairman Kresin asked Lower Valley Fire s fire flow requirements. It appeared there was only a 2 line coming into the property. Mr. Green said they will bring in the required water line to the property. He said there was a 10 line in P Road. Chairman Kresin said this is in an area of the County that the Master Plan indicates for 1 unit per 35 acres, zoned AFT, which brings it down to a 5-35 acre criteria. That doesn t, in his opinion, entitle the applicant to a 5 acre lot size. That s the lower side of the equation. They should be closer to 35 acres than 5 acres. It would be more compatible with the Master Plan and the AFT zoning code. The 157 acre parcel would be divisible by 4, 35 acre parcels sometime in the future, and all would be outside of the 35 acre no subdivision limitation. Based on densities occurring on this property it would substantially lower the densities in the area. It brings it incompatible with the density requirements of the area. Mr. Green said if it was viable agricultural land and prime soils, the 35+ acre intent would be true. This land doesn t come under the category of prime agricultural land. It is not suitable for creating 20 acre parcels of land because it would be unproductive for agricultural land. This is non prime agriculture. It takes significant irrigation to keep any growth on the land. Commissioner VanWinkle noted it looked like good alfalfa. Mr. Green said that area is within the 6% of prime land on the development. Chairman Kresin asked about irrigation crossing the access road. Mr. Green said it would cross under the road. Commissioner Dempsey asked about the 157 acre lot, and if it held any restrictions for further development. Mr. Green said there would be no restriction. The same AFT regulations apply to that parcel as well. It would have to go through the planning process. Public Comments: Donald Hodgkins, 1621 16 Road. If the project is approved, it will open the door for a lot of subdivisions in the area. The area shouldn t be that way. The Master Plan is the correct plan and should be adhered to. Petitioner s Rebuttal: Mr. Green said this is presently zoned AFT, 5-35 acres, and they meet that criteria. This area is one in which we see a significant mixed use in terms of parcel size in the area. He felt they are compatible with the area. Mr. Larsen said they should recognize the Code deals with a density of 1 unit per 5-35 acres. Based on criteria and location, the determination can be made that 1 unit per 5 acres is not appropriate. He noted there is no lot size requirement. The density is to be determined by the criteria in the Land Development Code. Commissioner VanWinkle asked staff about clustering of the lots and if there was any definition of what clustering would be in terms of lot size. Mr. Komatinsky said clustering has a specific intent that other open areas would be undevelopable. The 5
large lot has potential for further development. This would not fit the normal definition of clustering. Mr. Larsen said the Code has no specific requirement for clustering. From a planning perspective, this is not typical clustering. Commissioner Binder asked generally when clustering, if the land that is left can be subdivided. Chairman Kresin noted this is different. Mrs. Dannenberger said it doesn t meet the rural cluster bonus criteria of Chapter 6. Mr. Larsen said the lots are concentrated. It isn t meeting clustering requirements of the Code. Discussion: Commissioner VanWinkle felt it was premature for the area. It was too soon, and too small. It doesn t meet the Master Plan. They would probably be back in less than a year to subdivide the larger parcel and then could compare it to all the smaller lots. Commissioner Binder agreed. The distance to the Urban Growth Boundary is 4 miles. When you put 9, 5 acre lots 4 miles away from everything, it signifies that it is creating sprawl. The 157 acre parcel can point to the other small lots and show lower density. It doesn t fit with the Master Plan. It is furthering sprawl. Commissioner Noble said the issue was not lot size, but density. He wanted to see what makes the density incompatible with the surrounding density. That was not crystal clear. He was concerned that it was incompatible with the Master Plan. He also wanted to see the vision for the 157 acre parcel on the proposal. He was concerned that it wasn t addressed in this application. Commissioner Domet agreed that it doesn t comply with the proposed density of the Master Plan. Commissioner Dempsey saw utilities there; gas and water. He would like to see the area stay rural. Timing is the market. There probably is a market there. The 35 acre lots will be a big anchor on the tax base. They will be a problem in the future because of their maintenance over the next 15-25 years. He would recommend this project. It is marginal land. The tax base will go up as will the assessed value. Chairman Kresin said this is an area in the Master Plan for a density of 35+ acres/lot. The average now is 33 acres/lot. The project is putting together 5 acre lots that are incompatible with the area. He wasn t convinced that Ute Water could supply the fire flows needed. The issue is the lot size, 6 times less than the average density of the average lot size in the area. Commissioner VanWinkle said it was not bad farm ground there. Commissioner Noble questioned the location map in the packet and the figures shown. Mr. Komatinsky noted those were acreage figures. 6
Commissioner Binder asked about schools, roads, and maintenance, in regard to utilities or does staff just look at gas, water and electricity. Mrs. Dannenberger said the Code section addresses a number of things. As far as schools, their commitment stops at collection of fees for school land. The roads need a survey study for maintenance costs. We know they can handle the capacity for the density now. There are issues such as intersection improvements, and sight distance limitations. A study should be done there. Mr. Komatinsky said in development of the Master Plan they look at these items. Mr. Larsen also said there is the issue of sprawl and the cost of facilities. Public Works gets a miniscule amount of property taxes for road maintenance. The other problem is relative to fire flow capacity in general. There are a whole variety of things but they have to look at the overall consequence of scattered development. They must balance costs to provide long term services and impacts of maintenance and impacts on everyone. Chairman Kresin again stated the issue of fire flow and the 2 line and needing an 8 line. MOTION: Commissioner Binder moved item 2003-285 PP2 Longview Ranchettes Subdivision be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with recommendation of denial as presented by staff. Commissioner VanWinkle seconded the motion. A vote was called and approved, 5-1. Commissioner Dempsey was opposed. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner VanWinkle asked about future services, i.e., DSL, bigger water lines, cable services, etc. She asked if it was too soon to ask for these items in these applications. Mr. Larsen noted telephone service is essential, but not cell service. Mrs. Dannenberger said rather than require developments have certain services, they should work collaboratively with utilities. Commissioner VanWinkle noted the school district never comments on applications. Mr. Larsen said they worked on the Gateway Plan for many years and very actively over the summer. They recently received word from Grand Valley Power that they no longer have any capacity to serve future commercial areas in Gateway. The concern is they have been trying to encourage a community to develop in certain areas and staff would have liked more input early on as to the capacity of that system. They have developed a major community plan then all of a sudden Grand Valley Power says they can t supply anymore electricity. Commissioner Domet was concerned with 5-7 deaths/year from traffic accidents. Research has found if roads in the north area were wider and there were more stop signs with flashing red lights, more people would stop at night. Rumble strips would help. 2 water lines are undersized. 4 water lines are not enough to 7 houses near him. There was continued discussion of living far out, services, traffic, etc. 7
Commissioner Noble thought the density issue on the previous application was pretty subjective. Mr. Green showed his basis of comparison and then the location map was shown for appropriateness. He thought it depended on the data you want to look at. It wasn t a slam dunk in his book. He was opposed to the configuration but not the actual development. Mr. Larsen said it was an issue of compatibility and aesthetics. Staff makes recommendations on compatibility on average density in the area. The overriding issue from staff s perspective is they will always make the recommendation according to the Master Plan. Commissioner Binder moved to adjourn. Commissioner VanWinkle seconded the motion. The hearing was adjourned at 8:36 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Terri Binder, Secretary 8