9-25-14 - Mesa County

Transcription

PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING
September 25, 2014
6:00 P.M.
544 Rood Avenue
Grand Junction, Co.
1
MCPC Rolling Calendar
September 25, 2014
Project #
2014-0124 RZ
2014-0135 RZ
2013-0187 CUP
2014-0104 MP
October 7, 2014
October 16, 2014
2014-0138 CP
October 23, 2014
Project #
2014-0146 CUP
2014-0125 CUP
November 20, 2014
Project #
2014-0151 TXT
Mesa County Planning Commission Hearing - 6 PM - 544 Rood Ave - Hearing Room
Project Name
Planner
BoCC
Status
Springfield Lot 2 Rezone
Chrisite
10/14
OK
Villa Way Rezone
Chrisite
10/14
OK
Western Slope Flagstone Cameo Quarry Conditional Use Permit
Randy
10/14
OK
Roma Lot 4 Master Plan Amendment
Kaye
N/A
Continued
Mesa Design Guidelines & Standards Open House - 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM
Mesa Community Center - 48973 KE Road
Mesa Design Guidelines & Standards Master Plan
New MCPC
2/26/2015
Mesa County Planning Commission Workshop - 5:45 PM - 200 S. Spruce St - Conference Room 40A
Kunau Concept Plan Building Envelope Removal
Chrisite
Project Name
Planner
BoCC
Status
New MCPC
Deer Creek Disposal Facility Amend Conditional Use Permit
Randy
11/18
OK
Victory Life Church Signage Conditional Use Permit
Randy
11/18
OK
Project Name
Planner
BoCC
Status
Mesa Design Guidelines Text Amendment
Kaye
12/16
OK
New MCPC
2
Mesa County Planning
Commission Public Meeting
Joseph H. Moreng, Chair
Phillip Jones, Vice Chair
Chip Page, Secretary
Christi Flynn
Wesley K. Lowe
Rusty Price
David J. Hartmann
George Skiff
Ron Wriston (1st Alternate)
Vacant (2nd Alternate)
Vacant (3rd Alternate)
Date: Thursday, September 25, 2014
Time: 6:00 p.m.
nd
Place: Mesa County Public Hearing Room, 544 Rood Avenue, 2 Floor, Grand Junction,
th
Colorado. Please use the 6 Street entrance.
The following items will be presented at this public hearing of the Mesa County Planning
Commission for their consideration. The Planning Commission will formulate a recommendation,
which will be forwarded to the Mesa County Board of County Commissioners. If you have an
interest in an item on the Agenda, the date and time of the County Commissioners’ hearing is
listed after each agenda item. Your appearance at both hearings is important and encouraged.
The purpose of a land use hearing is to have the facts of a case presented in a manner that will
assist the decision-makers in making a fair, legal, and complete decision. The hearing is a factfinding forum by unbiased decision-makers, not a popularity contest. Unruly behavior, such as
booing, hissing, cheering, applause, verbal outbursts, or other inappropriate behavior, detract
from the hearing and will not be permitted.
An “11:00 Rule” will be enforced. This rule does not allow new agenda items to be heard after
11:00 p.m.
NOTE: Copies of Staff Reports for Hearing Items are available on the back table within the
hearing room.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
8-28-14
AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND/OR PRESENTATIONS
CONTINUED ITEMS:
2014-0104 MP
ROMA LOT 4 MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
Property Owner:
Roma, LLC
Representative(s): Kim Kerk, Blue Star Industries
Location:
2031 Roma Avenue; east of 20 Road and north of K Road
Planner:
Kaye Simonson, AICP, (970) 255-7189 [email protected]
Request:
Request to change the Future Land Use classification of Lot 4 of Roma
Estates Subdivision, Parcel Number 2697-113-04-004, within the Mesa County/Fruita/Grand
Junction “cooperative planning area,” from Rural/Agricultural 10 (R/A 10; a Rural Future Land
3
Use) to Estate (1-3 acres; an Urban Future Land Use), on the Future Land Use Map of the Mesa
County Master Plan (which includes the Cooperative Planning Area in the Grand Junction
Comprehensive Plan – an element of the Mesa County Master Plan).
Details can be found at the following link:
http://www.mesacounty.us/planning/proposed-master-plan-amendments.aspx
Mesa County Planning Commission hearing continued to: 02-26-15
END OF CONTINUED ITEMS
G.
WITHDRAWN ITEMS:
NONE
END OF WITHDRAWN ITEMS
H.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: Items placed on the Consent Agenda allow the Planning
Commission to spend its time on the more complex items. These items are generally not perceived
as controversial and can be approved by a single motion. The petitioners and staff are in agreement
on all of the recommendations on these projects. The Planning Commission will pass these items to
the Mesa County Commissioners, subject to staff and review agency comments. Anyone from the
public or the Planning Commission may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda for
individual consideration at tonight’s hearing.
NOTICE: If an applicant agrees to have a project placed on the Consent Agenda for the
Planning Commission, and it is approved on that Agenda, the project will be forwarded to the
Mesa County Commissioner’s Consent Agenda. If an applicant decides to remove the item from
the Board’s Consent Agenda, the project will be referred back to the Planning Commission and
rescheduled for a new hearing date.
1. 2014-0124 RZ SPRINGFIELD LOT 2 REZONE
Property Owner:
Hayden Investments, LLC
Representative:
Julie Hayden
Location:
3208 Springfield Road, Grand Junction, 81503 (32 & Springfield Roads)
Zoning:
C-2
Planner:
Christie Barton, 255-7191, [email protected]
Request:
Rezone Lot 2 of Springfield Estates from the General Commercial (C-2)
zoning district to the Limited Industrial (I-1) zoning district.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Board of County Commissioners Hearing Date: 10-14-14
2. 2014-0135 RZ VILLA WAY REZONE
Property Owner:
Daniel Amico
Location:
3172 E ½ Road, Grand Junction, 81504 (Villa Way & E½ Road)
Zoning:
PUD
Planner:
Christie Barton, 255-7191, [email protected]
Request:
Rezone approximately 1.5 acres of land from Planned Unit Development
(PUD) zone district to Residential Multi-Family – 8 units per acre (RMF-8).
4
END OF CONSENT ITEMS
I.
HEARING ITEMS:
PRESENTATION RULES: Due to the volume of items to be heard the follow 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.
3. 2013-0187 CUP WESTERN SLOPE FLAGSTONE, CAMEO QUARRY CUP AMENDMENT,
RAPID CREEK ROAD ACCESS
Property Owner(s): Rudolph Fontanari
Representative(s): Trevor Grosse
Location:
3998 Rapid Creek Rd, Palisade
Zoning:
AFT
Planner:
Randy Price, (970) 244-1759, [email protected]
Request:
To amend the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for mining to allow up to 5
gravel haul trucks per day from the Western Slope Flagstone, Cameo Quarry to use Rapid Creek
Road as a haul route.
Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
END OF HEARING ITEMS
J.
PLANNING DIRECTOR UPDATES
NONE
END OF PLANNING DIRECTOR UPDATES
K.
ADJOURNMENT
The Mesa County Public Hearing Room is accessible to the handicapped. With advance
5
request, a sign language interpreter may be made available (call 244-1636 or TDD 256-1530).
Mesa County Planning Division
P.O. Box 20,000, 200 S. Spruce St.
Grand Junction, CO
6
MCPC
MINUTES
7
MESA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
August 28, 2014
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
In attendance representing the Mesa County Planning Commission, were: Christi Flynn,
Wes Lowe, Chip Page, Rusty Price, David Hartmann, Ron Wriston and George Skiff.
In attendance, representing the Mesa County Planning Division, were: Linda
Dannenberger and Randy Price. Kathy Kinsey was present to record the minutes.
There were five (5) citizens and two (2) Mesa County Planning Division staff members
present throughout the hearing.
ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN PRO TEM
Commissioner Lowe nominated Commissioner Page for Chairman Pro Tem
for the hearing
Motion for election: Commissioner Lowe
Second: Commissioner Flynn
Motion Approved 7-0
Approval of Minutes
7-24-14
Motion: Commissioner Flynn moved to approve the minutes as written.
Second: Commissioner Skiff
Approved 7-0
Continued Items
2013-0187 CUP WESTERN SLOPE FLAGSTONE, CAMEO QUARRY CUP
AMENDMENT, RAPID CREEK ROAD ACCESS
Property Owner(s): Rudolph Fontanari
Representative(s): Trevor Grosse
Location:
3998 Rapid Creek Rd, Palisade
Zoning:
AFT
Planner:
Request:
To amend the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for mining to allow up
to 5 gravel haul trucks per day from the Western Slope Flagstone, Cameo Quarry to use
Rapid Creek Road as a haul route.
CONTINUED TO THE FOLLOWING DATES:
Mesa County Planning Commission Hearing Date: 9-25-14
Motion: Commissioner Price
Second: Commissioner Lowe
Continuation Approved 7-0
Consent Items
None
8
Hearing Items
1. 2014-0097 CUP MOUNTAIN VIEW FARMS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Property Owner(s): Robert R Prescott
Representative(s): Jeri Prescott
Location:
3165 B 1/2 Rd, Grand Junction
Zoning:
AFT
Planner:
Request:
Application for minor entertainment events (Section 5.2.26, Mesa
County Land Development Code) for a wedding venue. Events will be Friday, Saturday
or Sunday with 2 to 4 events per month with up to 150 guests. Events will end
at 11:00 pm. The house will be used as a bed and breakfast with 3 guest rooms.
Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
Staff Presentation
Randy Price entered into the record Mountain View Farms LLC, Conditional Use Permit,
project file 2014-0097, project review dated August 18, 2014, the 2000 Mesa County
Land Development Code, Mesa County Land Use Plan, PowerPoint presentation as
Exhibit A, and three exhibits that are letters that were received in the past week from the
public concerning this request for a CUP. These exhibits are labeled as Exhibit 1, 2 and
3. Exhibit 1 is from Monty Joslin, Exhibit 2 is from Dennis Berry, and Exhibit 3 is from
Don and Shirley Kramer.
Mr. Price explained that the application is for a minor entertainment event under Section
5.2.6 Mesa County Land Development Code to be used as a wedding venue. He went
on to explain that events at this location are proposed to be held on Friday, Saturday or
Sunday with 2 – 4 events per month, up to 150 guests and to end at 11 p.m.
Mr. Price provided background and location information about the property. He then
showed the future land use map pointing out the Mesa County Land Overlay Zoning
and also the Orchard Mesa Land Overlay District. He explained where the proposed
projects’ property is located and showed a subdivision to the south of the property
called Madison Acres Subdivision which is in the overlay zoning and the lots are 1.5
acres. Mr. Price then showed an aerial photo of the site explaining that it faces B 1/2
Road, the driveway accesses B 1/2 Road and the property is on 4.9 acres. The house
and other structures that will be involved in the event area are on the west side of the
parcel and a site plan map was shown.
Mr. Price continued to point out and explain that the events would be held in the barn.
He stated that there is a parking area on the western side for caterers, bride and groom
and other people assisting with the event. He then explained that a traffic analysis has
been done in regards to the driveway and it was determined that it is sufficient for the
proposed use and no turn lanes would be required. He also stated that the sight
distance in both directions is sufficient and okay for 150 vehicles. Mr. Price explained
that there is a hayfield on the eastern side of the parcel and the applicant has proposed
to use portions of the hayfield for parking.
9
Mr. Price then showed a picture of the barn that will be used for the events and pointed
out where the additional parking and set up location for the people working for the
event. He stated that the location where the events would take place is 305 feet to the
nearest residence in the back. He showed several more pictures pointing out where
people may gather during an event and also stated that in this application they are also
proposing a bed and breakfast within the house. A bed and breakfast does not require a
conditional use permit and can be approved through a site plan application and can be
handled separately from this application. Mr. Price showed more photos taken of the
driveway and other residences in the area.
Mr. Price explained that minor entertainment events are approved through a conditional
use permit and that the Mesa County Land Development Code was amended in 2010
and at that time provided criteria for approval of minor entertainment events. These
events can only be held in AFT rural zoning districts and within these applications the
staff looks for any adverse impacts such as noise, dust, odors, intrusive lighting and
traffic conflicts. Any mitigation would include vehicle access, circulation, noise limits,
hours of operation, distance to the event footprint from adjacent residences and
screening and also sound insulation for the event barn which is 3,400 square feet.
Mr. Price stated that with the traffic study that was conducted, it specified that there
could be 21 events per year with the Notice of Intent approval. He showed additional
photos and pointed out that approximately 4 months ago another minor entertainment
event application that was approved under a CUP called A Place to Say I Do, this was
approved in April 2014 and it is located 105 feet from the corner of each of the parcels
between the two venues.
Mr. Price read the CUP criteria in Section 3.8.7 of the Mesa County Land Development
Code and the conditions that are listed with this proposed project and stated that no
additional construction is going to take place and that signage is limited to a six foot
square sign for the bed and breakfast in this zoning area. He stated that a mitigating
measure regarding noise would be to have the event held in the barn which is an
insulated structure. He also mentioned that dust from traffic could occur because the
driveway is gravel and the parking area is a hayfield but a condition of approval states
that the hayfield be watered after events occur. He went on to explain the other
conditions of approval, reading the 16 conditions. Board of County Commissioners
hearing is scheduled for September 16th.
Questions
Commissioner Price inquired about the use being for a bed and breakfast as well as a
wedding event center and asked Mr. Price if the requirement for the septic system
would apply for both uses. Mr. Price explained that that is one of the requirements and
is also stipulated in comments from Robin Carnes from Environmental Heath. He stated
that she does reviews with regards to the Onsite Wastewater Treatment System
(OWTS). Commissioner Price stated that on condition #9 that the applicant will have an
engineer certify that the system can handle the anticipated load in regards to the events
or the bed and breakfast use. Commissioner Price also asked about a requirement for
portable sanitary facilities on the site. Mr. Price said yes there is inclusion of those and
10
he doesn’t know exactly where they would be located and that they need an ADA
compatible facility too.
Commissioner Flynn wanted to see the photo of the barn where the weddings will be
held. She asked if there was a fuel tank by the barn and if it was going to remain there.
The applicant stated that it could be removed. Commissioner Flynn would like
something to be added about that being removed for the safety of the people. Mr. Price
added Condition #17 to the PowerPoint presentation to require removal of the fuel tank.
Commissioner Page asked about the other event venue that was approved recently and
he thought that amplified music wasn’t going to be allowed and that something like a
string quartet would be used. Mr. Price said that the other venue uses DJ’s and
prerecorded music. Chair Page asked what the amplification is and what the limits are.
Mr. Price stated that if they can mitigate the sound inside the building and he also
mentioned that the back of the building is next to the irrigation canal which is the
property boundary and they must meet the 50 decibels requirement to that point.
Ms. Dannenberger talked about a previous event application that did mention a string
quartet but with this application the noise has to be mitigated.
Commissioner Lowe wanted condition 7 clarified about the ending time for the events
and asked if that meant that everyone needed to be gone by 11:00 p.m. Mr. Price
stated that anyone there that was a customer would have left the property by 11 p.m.
He said there would probably be caterers and others that would remain later to clean
things up.
Commissioner Hartmann asked about the traffic and that the applicants are expecting 24 events per month assuming business takes off and the traffic study assumed 21
events per year, is that math resolved in that study. Mr. Price said the traffic study did
take into account 2-4 events per month but the applicant didn’t say how many events
per year so he took that information off of the traffic study which was based on 21 per
year and used that as the maximum.
Commissioner Hartmann also inquired about the noise and wanted clarification asking
how it would be handled if there was a complaint about the noise and if the applicant
would have to do more testing and demonstrate that there the level is less than 50
decibels and if they are not, what would be done to enforce this. Mr. Price said yes they
would be required to do more testing and that the applicant may have to mitigate that by
putting more insulation in the barn so the outside level is decreased. Mr. Price stated
that he suggested to the applicant that they purchase a sound meter so they can test it
themselves during an event and take measurements. Ms. Dannenberger explained that
if we get a complaint and they do nothing or can’t resolve it, we would bring the
conditional use permit back to another hearing for review and possible revocation. She
explained that at times applicants try their own methods and if this doesn’t work they
hire a sound engineer to assist them but this is an expensive endeavor but could be
required to happen.
11
Commissioner Wriston asked if having two wedding venues in close proximity would
result in a traffic jam. Mr. Price pointed out that this venue accesses off of B 1/2 Road
and the other venue doesn’t access off of B 1/2 Road. He pointed out on a map where
the traffic flow could go and stated that it could impact traffic if they both let out at the
same time. Mr. Price said the traffic study did not cover that possible issue.
Applicant
Robert Prescott, 3165 B 1/2 Road
Mr. Prescott stated that they have owned the property for about 12 years and they have
cleaned it up substantially. He said they plan on keeping things kept up nice and they
are looking at a way to help the public come to their place and have a good time and to
share the beauty of the property for a wedding venue. He mentioned that they are
aware of the potential problem with noise issues and would be more than willing to turn
the music down and not have it so loud. He talked about the trees they have planted
recently and they plan on putting in more where they can. Mr. Prescott said there would
probably not be any weddings on Sundays but they may have a function there with their
church and it would not be a noisy or late event.
He explained that the insulation in the barn is R-30 in the ceiling and in the walls, it has
5/8 inch sheet rock on all surfaces and they are working on the ceiling now. He stated if
they have an outdoor event they would put the band inside the barn by the doors.
Questions
NONE
Public Comments
Bruce Peterson, 3156 Maddy Court
Mr. Peterson explained that he has the corner lot in Madison Acres and when he sits in
his back yard and patio he has a direct line of site to the house, the barn and everything
around it. He stated that he bought his house in 2007 and he paid $600,000 and he has
put $200,000 into it in landscaping. He has the house for sale at this time due to his
wife’s health, for financial reasons and they need to downsize. He went on to say that
they bought the house because it was in a peaceful area and is also in an agricultural
area which appeals to him a lot. Mr. Peterson referred to the proposed event center as
a nightclub and that he had no problem with the bed and breakfast. He doesn’t believe
that a wedding venue and a bed and breakfast would be a good combination for people
wanting the peace and quiet of a bed and breakfast and then having a big noisy
wedding going on there too.
Since he has had his house on the market and the sign has been put up in regards to
this project, people ask what it’s all about. He tells them what the proposal is and most
people lose interest in his property. Mr. Peterson is upset because he will also be able
to see and hear everything that goes on when there is a wedding and that this will
further destroy the value of his property along with the other wedding venue that is
already in place 1000 feet away. He complained about the dust from driveway and the
parking area and stated that there could be up to 3 or 4 people in each car and that
could easily put the amount of guests over 150.
12
Dennis Berry, 3154 B Road
Mr. Berry stated that he objects to this wedding venue but has nothing against the bed
and breakfast. He said he doesn’t see why this is called a minor event center and that
calling it a major event center would seem to be better suited. He did the math and it
would be 48 events per year which would be more like a night club in his opinion not a
wedding event center. He explained that he can hear everything that goes on from the
current wedding venue and as the evening gets later the noise gets louder. He also
stated that the way this one is worded it makes it sound like they are required to have 2
to 4 events a month and that the other venue is limited to 10 per year and is wondering
why this one would allow for so many more.
Mr. Berry said he believes the traffic from both venues will end up on B 1/2 Road
causing a lot of traffic. He also stated that it would be possible for some people to use
B Road but if they do that it means going across a one lane bridge to access B Road so
the majority will probably use B 1/2 Road. He asked how many event centers are
allowed in this radius in this area and wondered if there was a code limit or if this can
just keep going on.
Mr. Berry requested that Mr. Price point out where his parcel is located in relation to
both of the event centers. Mr. Price pulled up a map and showed everyone where Mr.
Berry’s property line is located. Mr. Berry voiced his objection to having another event
center and them having an additional amount of events compared to the other location.
He doesn’t see that this is needed at all. Mr. Berry went on to express his objection to
this venue in regards to people drinking and driving, heavy traffic on a small arterial, the
possibility of someone getting killed and why does this event center get to stay open
later than the other.
Commissioner Price asked to have Mr. Price explain why there is a need for another
one of these venues in the same area. Mr. Price stated that he goes by the Land
Development Code and it doesn’t specify a maximum number or density of minor
entertainment events per area, there is no minimum distance between events, which
was not put into the regulations. Ms. Dannenberger gave some history regarding this
code amendment and in the original amendment separation and distance requirements
were proposed but the board of county commissioners at the time didn’t want to be
specific about any restrictions and they wanted to have general considerations and then
have the planning commissioners and the board apply any restrictions to the
neighborhood on a case by case basis. She stated that the concerns are all valid and
consideration of the conditions of approval needs to be looked at as to whether they are
appropriate or if the project is appropriate.
Commissioner Price asked Mr. Berry if he would be more in agreement of this project if
they had the time for the events to end be earlier in the evening. Mr. Berry said yes, he
thinks it should at least be the same as the other event center.
13
Shirley Kramer, 3152 B Road
Ms. Kramer stated that she was at the previous hearing for the other event center and
now here is another one that she is not happy about. She stated that they have had to
listen to the noise from the other venue 8 times this summer and it has been very noisy.
She said they have 3 acres and it takes a lot of work to take care of it and they spend a
lot of time outside. She stated that after the work is done and the sun is setting they like
to go outside and enjoy their backyard but from about 8:30 p.m. every weekend and it
sounds like a drunken brawl. She said the people at the other event center have asked
the neighbors to call them if it’s too loud or goes on too long. Ms. Kramer stated that her
husband has talked to them about it but there is never any change. Ms. Kramer asked
where are their rights are in this.
Ms. Kramer said she did some research and found many places around this area that
you can get married for a reasonable price. She mentioned several of the venues that
she found that people that can rent. She asked the commissioners to say enough is
enough.
John Kramer, 3152 B Road
Mr. Kramer stated that he has spoken to the proprietor of the other venue on several
occasions and she admitted that she can’t control the crowd noise. She told him that
she sets up the amplified music to be 49 DB at her property line; Mr. Kramer is 1000
feet away and can hear her music. He said if her music is at 49 DB then the crowd
noise is probably 60, 70, or 80 DB, he can hear individual voices at 1000 feet and he
can’t yell across their own lot of 3 acres and be heard.
Mr. Kramer called the sheriff not long ago and the sheriff went out and the proprietor
told the sheriff she was in compliance and he believed her and told Mr. Kramer she was
in compliance. Commissioner Price asked Mr. Kramer if he had made a complaint to the
code enforcement department. Mr. Kramer said yes he has but he has not heard of any
result from that complaint and he assumes it’s still in progress. He stated this was about
3 to 4 weeks ago.
Applicant Response
Mr. Prescott stated that their music will be indoors and they have sympathy for what the
neighbors will have to endure. He stated that he has lived on this property since 1972
and he can hear the drag races every Sunday throughout the summer and they go until
11 or 12 p.m. at night. He said he would work with the county and the neighbors to help
minimize the neighbors’ distress.
Staff comments
None
Discussion
Commissioner Flynn stated that she feels that they can’t deny one when they have
allowed another prior to this application. She stated several other reasons that she
14
believes this should be approved including the fact that it meets all of the criteria
needed.
Commissioner Wriston stated that he doesn’t see how we can deny this one but he
feels that they could possibly curtail the time to have events end earlier or on Sundays
have the times be different.
Commissioner Flynn said that she feels that 10 or 11 p.m. is a sufficient time because
the younger generation isn’t going to want to go home any earlier.
Commissioner Skiff asked if there was an issue with code enforcement and why
wouldn’t both venues have the same time limits. He is concerned that they may not be
looking at the complaint soon enough. Mr. Price and Ms. Dannenberger stated that
code doesn’t go out at night and they may be waiting until there is another event and
they can use a meter and get a print out from the events. Ms. Dannenberg stated that
there are many different conductors of noise and people have had to hire an engineer to
put things to the test.
Ms. Dannenberger discussed Commissioner Hartmann’s concern about the traffic study
and that condition #7 needs to be amended to match the number in the traffic study
which is a maximum of 21 events. Commissioner Hartmann concurred.
Commissioner Price stated his concern that the other wedding venue is limited to 10
events per year and this one is allowed 48. Ms. Dannenberger said we are suggesting
that this wedding venue be maximized at 21 and that the other place volunteered to
have their maximum be at 10.
Further discussion took place about regulating this to the proper noise levels, amount of
guests, amount of parties per year, and controlling crowd noise. Commissioner Lowe
stated that he has had opportunities to interact with code enforcement and that he has
found those to be very lacking and it’s sad. He said he doesn’t know how to protect
individual rights and the ability of a person to use their property as they see fit so this is
a gray area and doesn’t think the commission has a basis to reject this.
Commissioner Page stated he lives within 2-3 miles of the fairgrounds and the race
track and he can hear everything. He said he sympathizes with these people and their
rights, to be able to enjoy their backyards and not have 2 parties going on in the
neighborhood and hear it all in stereo so he objects to this application.
Commissioner Skiff asked if the traffic study took into account having 2 wedding venues
in the same area and maybe this should be taken into account. Mr. Price said they did
not look at both venues with regards to the traffic study.
Motion: Commissioner Flynn moved that 2014-0097 CUP be passed for approval with
conditions.
Second: Commissioner Hartmann
15
Roll call vote:
David – yes
Christi – yes
Chip – no
Wes – yes
Rusty – no
Ron – no
George – yes
Recommendation passes 4-3
Election of Secretary
Motion made by Commissioner Price to elect Commissioner Page as secretary
Second: Commissioner Flynn
Election Closed
Approved 7-0
Motion: Commissioner Price moved that the meeting be adjourned
Second: Commissioner Lowe
Motion Approved 7-0
Hearing adjourned at 7:30 PM
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
Chip Page, Secretary
16
Index/
Location
Map
17
INDEX
MESA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
LAND USE HEARING
SEPTEMBER 25, 2014
CONSENT ITEMS:
1. 2014-0124 RZ SPRINGFIELD LOT 2 REZONE, Pg 21
2. 2014-0135 RZ VILLA WAY REZONE, Pg 38
HEARING ITEMS:
3. 2013-0187 CUP WESTERN SLOPE FLAGSTONE, CAMEO
QUARRY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT, RAPID
CREEK ROAD ACCESS, Pg 57
18
Location Map
4
3
!
2
!
1
!
!
MCPC Hearing Items
September 25, 2014
10
5
0
10
20
30
Miles
4
19
PROJECT
REVIEW
20
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 20,000-5022 • Grand Junction, Colorado 81502-5001
Ph (970) 244-1636 Fax (970) 244-1769
PROJECT REVIEW
September 15, 2014
I.
2014-0124 RZ
SPRINGFIELD ESTATES LOT 2 REZONE
Property Owner: Hayden Investments, LLC
Representative: Julie Hayden
Location: 3208 Springfield Road, Grand Junction, 81503 (32 & Springfield Roads)
Parcel #: 2943-352-01-002
Zoning: C-2
Planner: Christie Barton, 255-7191, [email protected]
Request: Rezone Lot 2 of Springfield Estates from the General Commercial (C-2) zoning
district to the Limited Industrial (I-1) zoning district.
Location and Zoning Map:
I. SURROUNDING LAND USES, AND ZONING:
Zoning within the 500-foot public notification area:
 AFT
 Urban zoning districts: RSF-4, RMF-5, RMF-8, C-2 and I-1
Page 1 of 5
21
Land Uses within the 500-foot public notification area:
 Residential to the northwest
 Springfield Estates Commercial/Light Industrial Subdivision
 Orchard Mesa Gun Club to the south
Applicable Area Plans
 Grand Junction Comprehensive Plan
o Future Land Use is Industrial
 Orchard Mesa Neighborhood Plan
II. PROJECT HISTORY & DESCRIPTION:
This application is a request to change the zoning on Lot 2 of the Springfield Estates Subdivision
from General Commercial (C-2) to Limited Industrial (I-1). The Hayden’s’ own five lots and this
lot is the only one zoned C-2. They want to have all their lots zoned the same district of I-1. This
property is currently vacant.
Consolidated Zoning Map for 3208 Springfield Road:
The property is located within the Grand Junction Comprehensive Planning Area and is
designated for “Industrial (IND)” land use. The Industrial District is primarily intended to
accommodate light manufacturing uses within enclosed structures or developments that provide
for a mix of office, light industrial and limited retail and service uses in attractive, business park
settings. The I-1 District corresponds to and implements the Mesa County Master Plan’s
“Industrial” future land use classification.
The Orchard Mesa Neighborhood Plan (a neighborhood plan within the Comprehensive Plan)
was adopted May 22, 2014. This property is served by the Clifton Sanitation District and meets
the requirements for non-residential uses to be served by sanitary sewer.
Page 2 of 5
22
Future Land Use Map:
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE MESA COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE:
Section 3.4.7 Approval Criteria:
In acting on a Rezoning application, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the
General Approval Criteria in Section 3.1.17, consider the stated purpose of the proposed zoning
district, and may approve the Rezoning application only after considering the following:
A.
the rezone is consistent with the goals and policies of the Master Plan, including
applicable special area, neighborhood and corridor plans;
The property is within the Grand Junction Comprehensive Planning Area, adopted in February,
2010. It is also within the Orchard Mesa Neighborhood Planning area. Both Plans are elements
of the Mesa County Master Plan. The property under consideration is designated in the Future
Land Use Map as “Industrial” intended for light manufacturing uses within enclosed structures
and light manufacturing uses. This rezone to I-1 is in compliance with the Future Land Use
designation of the Master Plan. This criterion has been met.
B. the proposed zoning district’s allowed uses are or can be made to be similar to or
compatible with surrounding and nearby land uses;
The request for the I-1 Zoning District is consistent with zoning established in the Future Land
Use Map for this area. The district allows commercial and light industrial uses. The property
owners own four adjacent lots all zoned I-1, and want to have all the lots the same zoning
district. When the lots develop, the Site Plan application process includes screening and
buffering review. This criterion has been met.
Page 3 of 5
23
C. the land to be rezoned was previously zoned in error or conditions have changed so
that the rezoning is consistent with county’s goals, policies and/or Master Plan;
The property was not rezoned in error. Springfield Estates was rezoned from AFT to C-2 and I-1
in 2010 (file #2010-0128 RZ) as a result of the owners participation in the Grand Junction
Comprehensive Plan update. The residential lots were not selling, and there appeared to be a
deficit of commercial and industrial lots available. The Future Land Use was amended for the
area and the property rezoned. The property owner of the lot wants to rezone Lot 2 so that all
their lots will have I-1 zoning. the Future Land Use classification in the Grand Junction
Comprehensive Plan shows the lot as Industrial. This criterion has been met.
D. public and community facilities and services including but not limited to sewage and
waste disposal, domestic water, irrigation water (where available), gas, electricity, police
and fire protection, and roads and transportation are or can be made available to serve the
types and scope of land uses allowed in the proposed zoning district;
Facilities and services are available to serve the site. Clifton Sanitation District provides sanitary
sewer service and domestic water is provided by Ute Water District. No irrigation water is
available to the site. The Orchard Mesa Canal #2 forms the northwestern boundary of the site
and no drainage or stormwater is allowed to flow into the canal. The subdivision was designed
with shared retention basins located adjacent to the canal. Grand Valley Power provides
electricity to the property. Emergency services are provided by Mesa County Sheriff’s
Department and the Central Orchard Mesa Fire District. Access to the property is from
Springfield Road, which has been constructed and in the review phase before it is petitioned into
the County maintenance system. This criterion has been met.
IV. 3.1.17 GENERAL APPROVAL CRITERIA:
A. Complies with all applicable standards, provisions, and purposes of this Land
Development Code.
The intent of the I-1 zoning classification in the Mesa County Master Plan is to accommodate
commercial and light industrial development. Public water, sanitary sewer and road access to a
state highway are available to the property. This application meets the rezone criteria and the
future Land Use designation in the Master Plan. This criterion has been met.
B. Is consistent with review agency comments.
The proposal is consistent with review agency comments. This criterion has been met.
C. Is consistent with applicable intergovernmental agreements between the County and
other entities.
The project is consistent with Intergovernmental Agreement MCA 83-26 to send applications to
the City of Grand Junction. The City of Grand Junction has made a comment that the rezone is
consistent with the Future Land Use map. This criterion has been met.
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
As of the date of this project review, no public comments have been received concerning this
application.
VI. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS:
All review agency comments received are a part of the hearing packet and the file.
Page 4 of 5
24
VII. PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends APPROVAL
of the rezone for 3208 Springfield Road from C-2 to I-1 on the basis that:
 the proposed rezone complies with the approval criteria for rezones in Section 3.4.7 of
the Mesa County Land Development Code (2000, as amended);
 the proposed rezone complies with the general approval criteria in Section 3.1.17 of the
Mesa County Land Development Code (2000, as amended);
 the proposed rezone is consistent with goals identified in the Grand Junction
Comprehensive Plan, an element of the Mesa County Master Plan.
 the proposed rezone is consistent with the Future Land Use Map that designates the area
for “Industrial.”
Summary
Rezone Criteria
3.4.7.A
Consistent with the Master Plan
3.4.7.B
Are or can be made compatible with
surrounding and nearby land uses
3.4.7.C
Error in zoning or conditions changed
3.4.7.D
Adequate facilities and Services
General Approval Criteria
3.1.17.A
Compliance with applicable standards and
provisions in the Land Development Code
3.1.17.B
Consistency with review agency comments
3.1.17.C
Consistency with applicable IGAs
Has Been Met
Has Been Met
Has Been Met
Has Been Met
Has Been Met
Has Been Met
Has Been Met
VIII. MCPC Hearing: September 25, 2014:
IX. BCC Hearing and Decision: October 14, 2014:
Page 5 of 5
25
HEARING
NOTICE
26
Parcel/Notification
Springfield Lot 2 Rezone
Map
2014-0124 RZ
September 8, 2014
Notification Buffer
Legend
500 ft buffer
Parcels
Urban Growth Area
2943-352-01-002
0.095
0
0.095
0.19
0.285
"
0.38
Miles
27
PARCEL_NUM
2943-352-00-036
2943-352-00-052
2943-352-01-005
2943-352-00-038
2943-352-00-056
2943-352-00-051
2943-352-00-055
2943-353-00-984
2943-352-01-022
2943-352-01-019
2943-352-00-041
OWNER
MAILING
CITY
ST
ALLEN JO ANNE
174 32 RD
GRAND JUNCTION CO
BOWEN AYERS DOUGLAS
2721 RINCON DR GRAND JUNCTION CO
HAYDEN INVESTMENTS LLC
PO BOX 100
PALISADE
CO
JEFLANI PROPERTIES LLC
PO BOX 2557
GRAND JUNCTION CO
KADRMAS MITZI G
731 BENNETT AVE GLENWOOD SPRINGCO
KECK BETTY L
PO BOX 4323
GRAND JUNCTION CO
MCCLINTOCK NORMAN L TRUSTE 178 32 RD
GRAND JUNCTION CO
ORCHARD MESA GUN CLUB
PO BOX 4354
GRAND JUNCTION CO
SPRINGFIELD RANCHES LLC
PO BOX 1380
CLIFTON
CO
WILLOW WOOD DEVELOPMENT LPO BOX 1380
CLIFTON
CO
YANEZ JOSE ROSARIO
3217 SUNNY HILL L GRAND JUNCTION CO
ZIP
81503
81503
81526
81502-2557
816013417
81502
81503-9402
81502-4354
81520
81520
81503
28
REVIEW
AGENCY
COMMENTS
29
30
31
PRO2014-0124 - SPRINGFIELD LOTS REZONE Review Agency Comments
Comments Due Date: 2014-09-10
User
Review
Agency
Melinda
Henderson
MC TREASURER
8/20/2014 As of August 20, 2014 property taxes are paid in full on parcel
4:30:43 PM number 2943-352-01-002. MMH
BRIAN WOODS
SAN CLIFTON
8/21/2014 Clifton Sanitation has no additional comments regarding the
9:48:34 AM rezoning for this parcel. Future sanitary sewer service will be
formally reviewed at the time of application for services.
PERRY RUPP
UT GV RURAL
POWER
8/22/2014 GVP Review Comments
4:00:27 PM
1. The project is in the Grand Valley Power service area.
2. Single-phase power is available for this project, on site and along
Springfield Road.
3. Any relocation of existing overhead power lines, poles,
guy/anchors, underground lines, transformers or any other Grand
Valley Power equipment is at the developer’s expense.
Daniel Roussin
CODOT-REGION
3
JIM DAUGHERTY WATER UTE
Date/Time Comment
8/26/2014 I have no comments on the re-zone of the property. However, if
10:12:49 AM the use increase the traffic by more than 20% of the 17 peak hour
traffic volume allowed by the access permit #307128; then a new
access permit would be required.
9/2/2014 • No objections to rezone only.
3:45:18 PM • All fees and policies in effect at time of application will apply.
If you have any questions concerning any of this, please feel free
to contact Ute Water.
Daniel Sundstrom MC TRANS PLAN
9/4/2014 No objections to re-zone, future development will require a traffic
9:25:05 AM analysis.
BRIAN RUSCHE
CITY GJ
PLANNING DIV
9/5/2014 City of Grand Junction - Community Development: No objections
1:34:02 PM to proposed rezone, as it appears to be consistent with the Future
Land Use map.
MC DEV
ENGINEER
MC DEV
ENGINEER
9/10/2014 MC Development Engineering
11:01:24 AM
No comments.
32
NO
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
33
APPLICANT
INFORMATION
34
We are requesting a rezoning of our property located at 3208 Springfield Road, GJ (Lot 2, Springfield
Estates). The property is currently zoned C-2. Our request would change that to I-1.
The future land use in the Grand Junction Comprehensive Plan is Industrial and our plan our be
consistent with that plan. The majority of the surrounding lots are zoned I-1 there are only a few that
have the C-2 zoning.
We also own 4 additional lots on Springfield Road; 3214, 3220, 3226 and 3230 (Lots 3,4,5,and 6). We
feel that changing the zoning for Lot 2 would not impact any additional properties because of the
similarities and proximity of the lots already zoned I-1. We feel there would be no change of impact to
the environment, neighborhood, storm water, wildlife or vegetation.
To our knowledge there was no error made when the original zoning was done but due to the fact that
we own 5 lots we would like to have the option of allowing potential lessee's the option of leasing more
than one lot if more space is needed. Having the zoning the same would allow this to be an option. The
market that we would like to target may need additional yard space and due to the drainage retention
easements, drainage ditches, power line easements, etc. having the zoning the same would allow us to
offer this to those interested.
The property has electricity, domestic water, gas, sewer and paved roads. The change of zoning would
not impact any of these services. Services would not be effected by this rezoning change.
35
36
PROJECT
REVIEW
37
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 20,000-5022 • Grand Junction, Colorado 81502-5001
Ph (970) 244-1636 Fax (970) 244-1769
PROJECT REVIEW
September 15, 2014
I.
2014-0135 RZ
VILLA WAY REZONE
Property Owner: Daniel Amico
Location: 3172 E ½ Road, Grand Junction, 81504 (Villa Way & E½ Road)
Parcel #: 2943-101-00-136
Zoning: PUD
Planner: Christie Barton, 255-7191, [email protected]
Request: Rezone approximately 1.5 acres of land from Planned Unit Development (PUD) zone
district to Residential Multi-Family – 8 units per acre (RMF-8).
Location and Zoning Map:
I. SURROUNDING LAND USES, AND ZONING:
Zoning within the 500-foot public notification area:
 Urban zoning districts: RSF-4
 Residential Planned Unit Developments (PUDs): Villa Way Subdivision (1998-094),
Villa Coronado Subdivision (1981-190) and Clifton Village Subdivision (1976-098)
Page 1 of 5
38

Commercial Subdivisions: Coronado Plaza Bulk Development (1979-034) located east of
the subject property; the Valley East Commercial Park PUD (1978-237) and the ThirtyTwo Road Commercial Park (1977-160), both of which are located south of I-70
Business Loop.
Land Uses within the 500-foot public notification area:
 Residential
 Coronado Shopping Center
 Valley East Commercial Park and the Thirty-Two Road Commercial Park
Applicable Area Plans
 Grand Junction Comprehensive Plan
 Clifton/Fruitvale Community Plan
II. PROJECT HISTORY & DESCRIPTION:
This application is a request to change the zoning of the property from Planned Unit
Development (PUD) to RMF-8. The property was rezoned in 2006 to PUD (file #2006-051) in
order to complete a residential subdivision similar to the surrounding neighborhood. Since the
demand for subdivision lots is less, the owner wants to rezone the PUD that allowed smaller lots
in order to be able to construct multi-family units on the property. The property currently has an
existing house and associated outbuildings. The house would need to be subdivided from the
area for the apartments, and that can be done using the Minor Subdivision process.
Consolidated Zoning Map for 3172 E½ Road, Grand Junction:
The property is located within the Grand Junction Comprehensive Planning Area and is
designated for “Residential Medium High (RMH)” land use. The RMF-8, Residential-MultiFamily District is primarily intended to accommodate medium-high-density multi-family
residential development, and to provide land use protection for areas that develop in such a
Page 2 of 5
39
manner. It corresponds to and implements the Mesa County Master Plan’s “Residential/MediumHigh” future land use classification which allows single family and multi-family uses.
The Clifton/Fruitvale Community Plan (a neighborhood plan within the Comprehensive Plan)
was adopted October 19, 2006 and amended July 14, 2011. This property is in the South
Fruitvale neighborhood within the Plan. The neighborhood is primarily residential, with the
Grand Mesa Middle School, Central High School and Long Memorial Park located within its
boundaries. Commercial activities are conducted at Coronado Plaza and Mesa Pointe shopping
centers.
Future Land Use Map:
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE MESA COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE:
Section 3.4.7 Approval Criteria:
In acting on a Rezoning application, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the
General Approval Criteria in Section 3.1.17, consider the stated purpose of the proposed zoning
district, and may approve the Rezoning application only after considering the following:
A.
the rezone is consistent with the goals and policies of the Master Plan, including
applicable special area, neighborhood and corridor plans;
The property is within the Grand Junction Comprehensive Planning Area, adopted in February,
2010. It is also within the Clifton/Fruitvale Community Plan area. Both Plans are elements of the
Mesa County Master Plan. The property under consideration is designated in the Future Land
Use Map as “Residential Medium-High” intended for eight to sixteen units per acre density.
This rezone to RMF-8 is in compliance with the Future Land Use designation of the Master Plan.
This criterion has been met.
Page 3 of 5
40
B. the proposed zoning district’s allowed uses are or can be made to be similar to or
compatible with surrounding and nearby land uses;
The request for the RMF-8 District is consistent with zoning established in the Future Land Use
Map for this area. The district allows single family and multi-family residential uses. The
applicant is interested in proceeding with the Site Plan application process to construct
apartments on the property. The Site Plan application process reviews the need for buffering,
landscaping and sidewalks. This criterion has been met.
C. the land to be rezoned was previously zoned in error or conditions have changed so
that the rezoning is consistent with county’s goals, policies and/or Master Plan;
This property was rezoned from RSF-4 to PUD in 2006 so the owner could subdivide the
property into eleven lots (7.8 units/acre). With an increase in the demand for multi-family
housing, the owner is interested in rezoning the property to RMF-8. No errors have occurred but
conditions have changed. The 2010 adoption of the Future Land Use classification in the Grand
Junction Comprehensive Plan shows the area as Residential Medium-High. The RMF-8 zoning
district implements this Future Land Use classification. This criterion has been met.
D. public and community facilities and services including but not limited to sewage and
waste disposal, domestic water, irrigation water (where available), gas, electricity, police
and fire protection, and roads and transportation are or can be made available to serve the
types and scope of land uses allowed in the proposed zoning district;
Facilities and services are available to serve the site. Clifton Sanitation District provides sanitary
sewer service. Domestic water is provided by Clifton Water District, and Palisade Irrigation
District provides irrigation water. Grand Valley Drainage District and the 5-2-1 Drainage
Authority provide drainage and stormwater services. Xcel Energy provides natural gas and
electricity to the property. Emergency services are provided by Mesa County Sheriff’s
Department and the Clifton Fire District. Access to the property is from E½ Road. This
criterion has been met.
IV. 3.1.17 GENERAL APPROVAL CRITERIA:
A. Complies with all applicable standards, provisions, and purposes of this Land
Development Code.
The intent of the RMF-8 zoning classification in the Mesa County Master Plan is to
accommodate medium high density multi-family residential development, with densities of 5-8
units/acre. Public water and sewer, roads and commercial services are available to the property,
and it is close to Grand Mesa Middle School and Central High School. The Coronado Plaza is
located approximately 300 feet to the east. This application meets the rezone criteria and the
future Land Use designation in the Master Plan. This criterion has been met.
B. Is consistent with review agency comments.
The proposal is consistent with review agency comments. This criterion has been met.
C. Is consistent with applicable intergovernmental agreements between the County and
other entities.
The project is consistent with Intergovernmental Agreement MCA 83-26 to send applications to
the City of Grand Junction. The City of Grand Junction has commented that the project is
consistent with the Future Land Use map. This criterion has been met.
Page 4 of 5
41
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
As of the date of this project review, no public comments have been received concerning this
application.
VI. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS:
All review agency comments received are a part of the hearing packet and the file.
VII. PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends APPROVAL
of the rezone from PUD to RMF-8 on the basis that:
 the proposed rezone complies with the approval criteria for rezones in Section 3.4.7 of
the Mesa County Land Development Code (2000, as amended);
 the proposed rezone complies with the general approval criteria in Section 3.1.17 of the
Mesa County Land Development Code (2000, as amended);
 the proposed rezone is consistent with goals identified in the Grand Junction
Comprehensive Plan, an element of the Mesa County Master Plan.
 the proposed rezone is consistent with the Future Land Use Map that designates the area
for “Residential Medium-High.”
Summary
Rezone Criteria
3.4.7.A
Consistent with the Master Plan
3.4.7.B
Are or can be made compatible with
surrounding and nearby land uses
3.4.7.C
Error in zoning or conditions changed
3.4.7.D
Adequate facilities and Services
General Approval Criteria
3.1.17.A
3.1.17.B
3.1.17.C
Has Been Met
Has Been Met
Has Been Met
Has Been Met
Has Been Met
Has Been Met
Has Been Met
VIII. MCPC Hearing: September 25, 2014
IX. BCC Hearing and Decision: October 14, 2014
Page 5 of 5
42
HEARING
NOTICE
43
Parcel/Notification Map
Villa Way Rezone
2014-0135 RZ
September 8, 2014
Notification Buffer
Legend
500 ft buffer
Parcels
2943-101-00-136
0.08
0
0.08
0.16
0.24
Urban Growth Area
0.32
Miles
"
44
PARCEL_NUM
2943-101-02-009
2943-101-07-022
2943-101-00-136
2943-104-16-014
2943-101-23-018
2943-101-07-033
2943-101-08-005
2943-104-12-011
2943-101-19-003
2943-101-08-006
2943-101-08-010
2943-101-19-005
2943-101-23-001
2943-104-12-001
2943-101-02-026
2943-101-08-014
2943-101-07-024
2943-101-07-031
2943-101-19-004
2943-101-19-006
2943-101-03-001
2943-101-08-015
2943-101-22-008
2943-101-02-010
2943-101-08-012
2943-104-16-013
2943-101-19-002
2943-101-07-030
2943-101-02-011
2943-104-12-012
2943-101-17-002
2943-101-07-027
2943-101-23-019
2943-101-23-008
2943-101-23-002
2943-101-02-025
2943-101-17-006
2943-101-08-008
2943-101-02-013
2943-101-23-021
2943-101-02-017
2943-101-22-001
2943-101-08-011
2943-101-23-003
2943-101-07-023
2943-101-07-029
CITY
OWNER
MAILING
AASEN GERALD M
568 1/2 BEVERLY LN GRAND JUNCTION
ABEYTA JEFFREY D
567 1/2 31 3/4 RD GRAND JUNCTION
AMICO DANIEL LOUIS SR 3172 E 1/2 RD
GRAND JUNCTION
ARNHOLD STEPHEN JOHN472 DUFFY DR
GRAND JUNCTION
ASHBY JUDY A
568 VILLA ST UNIT A GRAND JUNCTION
BARROW LELIA M
2886 PINEHURST LN GRAND JUNCTION
BERNER JUSTIN
566 31 3/4 RD
GRAND JUNCTION
BERRY COMPANIES INC PO BOX 829
WICHITA
BINGHAM KENNETH R
3167 FORREST WAY GRAND JUNCTION
BLACK JASON S
BONNER JOHN R
560 1/2 313/4 RD
GRAND JUNCTION
BRITTON DAVID W
BRUNET GREG
670 N SADDLE ROCK DGRAND JUNCTION
BURRIS BRYAN D
155 29 RD
GRAND JUNCTION
C&C THOMPSON FAMILY 556 BEVERLY LN
GRAND JUNCTION
CABALLERO DAVID
PO BOX 960
CLIFTON
CADMAN VERNON D
CEJKA CHRISTOPHER
3021 ROYAL CT
GRAND JUNCTION
COBLENZ SHIRLEY MAY TR3169 FORREST WAY GRAND JUNCTION
CONNORS EMERY E
2801 COTTAGE LN GRAND JUNCTION
CORONADO PLAZA LLC 6500 S QUEBEC ST ST ENGLEWOOD
COULTER DANIEL F
556 31 3/4 RD
GRAND JUNCTION
CREPINSEK VICKIE LYNN 571 VILLA ST
GRAND JUNCTION
DEAN TREVOR
2419 SANDRIDGE CT GRAND JUNCTION
DELL KENNETH
DOWD BEN
3097 GUNNISON AVE GRAND JUNCTION
EDMONDS CHAD
EISENACH MARCIA ANN PO BOX 23082
GLADE PARK
ELK COUNTRY PARTNERS 504 W 26TH ST
RIFLE
EXTOL LLC
707 ARROWEST RD STGRAND JUNCTION
FLORES OCTAVIO
557 VILLA ST
GRAND JUNCTION
FRANKLIN ZELDA I
563 31 3/4 RD
GRAND JUNCTION
FULLER ERIK
2873 FALL CREEK DR GRAND JUNCTION
GLADU DAVID
568 1/2 VILLA ST UNITGRAND JUNCTION
GMS LLC
605 25 RD STE 100 GRAND JUNCTION
GRATTAN MICHAEL T
552 BEVERLY LN
GRAND JUNCTION
GRAY AUDREY J
563 VILLA ST
GRAND JUNCTION
HALSTEAD MICHELL C
4241 S PEARL ST
ENGLEWOOD
HARDIN TRAVIS C
564 BEVERLY LN
GRAND JUNCTION
HARRISON THOMAS E SR 2536 RIMROCK AVE S GRAND JUNCTION
HENSON JOHN
562 BEVERLY LN
GRAND JUNCTION
HERRERA JUAN
557 CINDY ANN RD GRAND JUNCTION
HOFFMAN JEFFREY J
560 31 3/4 RD
GRAND JUNCTION
HOLVOET JOSEPH EDWAR560 VILLA ST UNIT B GRAND JUNCTION
HOOKER ROBERT M
626 CHACO CT
GRAND JUNCTION
HUTCHINGS BILLIE J
561 31 3/4 RD
GRAND JUNCTION
ST
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
KS
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
ZIP
81504-6008
81504-6069
81504-6000
81504-6241
81504
81503-3069
81504-6068
67201-0829
81504-7052
81504-6068
81504
81504-7048
81504-4041
81503
81504-6008
815200960
81504-6069
815044718
81504-7052
81506
80111-4674
81504-6068
81504-6202
815071653
81504-6068
81504-6372
81504-7052
81523
81650
81505
81504
81504-6069
815033057
81504-6254
81505-1282
81504-6008
81504-6052
80113-4741
81504-6008
81505
81504-6008
81501-4925
81504
81504-6245
81507-1040
81504-6069
45
2943-101-02-014
2943-101-00-027
2943-101-02-027
2943-101-07-026
2943-101-08-004
2943-101-23-009
2943-101-22-003
2943-101-02-020
2943-101-23-020
2943-101-25-006
2943-101-07-028
2943-101-07-032
2943-101-23-005
2943-101-08-007
2943-101-07-021
2943-101-08-009
2943-101-02-005
2943-101-02-012
2943-101-22-007
2943-101-02-015
2943-101-23-010
2943-101-23-006
2943-101-23-017
2943-101-17-001
2943-101-22-002
2943-101-08-002
2943-101-22-006
2943-101-22-005
2943-101-17-003
2943-101-17-004
2943-101-02-028
2943-101-07-034
2943-101-22-004
2943-101-08-013
2943-101-02-024
2943-101-23-004
2943-101-19-020
2943-101-07-025
2943-101-02-016
2943-101-02-008
2943-101-23-016
2943-101-25-007
2943-101-08-003
2943-101-23-007
563 BEVERLY LN
GRAND JUNCTION
HYDE FRANKLIN L SR
JOHNSON MATT
3166 E 1/2 RD
GRAND JUNCTION
KAMPF DONNA M
557 BEVERLY LN
GRAND JUNCTION
KEEN GARY
KIRK CAROLYN G
KUHLMAN REBA
568 1/2 VILLA ST UNITGRAND JUNCTION
LACEY JOHN S
565 1/2 VILLA ST
GRAND JUNCTION
LOVE KARIN LISA
560 BEVERLY LN
GRAND JUNCTION
MANLEY KERI M
MARQUEZ JOSE A
574 MAXWELL DR
GRAND JUNCTION
MATHERS MARY T
MJER HOLDINGS LLC
3146 ELLINGWOOD A GRAND JUNCTION
MOATS MARY M
MYERS ERRIN STEPHANIE 564 31 3/4 RD
GRAND JUNCTION
NOSTRANT WAYNE
3094 SILVER CREST TRGRAND JUNCTION
PERALTA MARI ANN
562 31 3/4 RD
GRAND JUNCTION
PEREA CARMEN I
570 1/2 BEVERLY LN GRAND JUNCTION
PLANTZ KARY L
568 BEVERLY LN
GRAND JUNCTION
POPHAM JEFFREY
569 1/2 VILLA ST
GRAND JUNCTION
POTTER PATSY JO
2636 HICKORY DR
GRAND JUNCTION
PYLAND JESSICA MARIE 770 PONDEROSA DR FRUITA
RALEY DIXIE LEE
566 VILLA ST UNIT B GRAND JUNCTION
REES RUTH E
3655 SOMERSET DR NEW ORLEANS
ROBLES MANUEL
555 VILLA ST
GRAND JUNCTION
ROLLINS ASHTON II
6101 CRESTBROOK DRMORRISON
ROSE JERRY R
ROWLAND CHELSI
569 VILLA ST
GRAND JUNCTION
RUIZ HERMILO
567 1/2 VILLA ST
GRAND JUNCTION
RUTTERBUSH-RAYMENT C559 VILLA ST
GRAND JUNCTION
SAGE VALLEY LLC
1011 COUNTY ROAD 3NEW CASTLE
SCHRAMMEL JAMES G 555 BEVERLY LN
GRAND JUNCTION
SCHROEPFER ANTONE M 555 1/2 31 3/4 RD GRAND JUNCTION
SEDA JESUS Z
567 VILLA ST
GRAND JUNCTION
SEITZ DONNA K
558 31 3/4 RD
GRAND JUNCTION
SHIRK BEVERLY M
3162 E 1/2 RD
GRAND JUNCTION
SHUPING LADEEN TRUST 562 VILLA ST
GRAND JUNCTION
SMITH TOMMY J
3160 E 1/2 RD
GRAND JUNCTION
SPENCE THEODORE R
565 31 3/4 RD
GRAND JUNCTION
TAFOYA ERNEST I
4637 BASS LAKE CT DEBEQUE
UMBERGER CHOYA LEE 570 BEVERLY LN
GRAND JUNCTION
VIALPANDO ANTHONY J 570 VILLA ST
GRAND JUNCTION
WEBB GARY W
576 MAXWELL DR
GRAND JUNCTION
WEST JUNE E
568 31 3/4 RD
GRAND JUNCTION
ZENDER CHRISTOPHER 235 FRONTIER ST
GRAND JUNCTION
WELLS FARGO
3231 I-70 BUSINESS L CLIFTON
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
LA
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
81504
81504-6072
81504-6007
81504
81504-6068
815046254
81504-6049
81504-6008
81504-6251
815047039
81504-6069
81504
81504-6252
81504-6068
815046198
81504-6068
81504-6008
81501
81504-6201
81506
815219616
81504-6252
70131-7138
81504-6052
80465-2223
81504-6068
81504
81504
81504
81647
81504
81504
81504-6201
81504-6068
81504-6046
81504-6005
81504
81504
81630
81504-6008
81504-6203
81504-7039
81504
815032773
81520
46
REVIEW
AGENCY
COMMENTS
47
48
49
PRO2014-0135 - VILLA WAY II REZONE Review Agency Comments
Comments Due Date: 2014-09-08
User
Review
Agency
Date/Time Comment
Daniel Roussin
CODOT-REGION
3
8/26/2014 I have no issues with the access off Villa. The access off E 1/2
10:03:27 AM Road will need to close. This shouldn't need an access permit
because the apartment complex isn't likely to increase by 20%.
Thanks
Melinda
Henderson
MC TREASURER
8/26/2014 As of August 26, 2014 property taxes are paid in full on parcel
10:03:40 AM number 2943-101-00-136. MMH
CHRIS ROWLAND FIRE CLIFTON
8/26/2014 No problems with the re-zone. Be aware of access issues and water
10:23:16 AM supply for multiple family dwellings.
KEVIN WILLIAMS IRR GV
DRAINAGE
8/26/2014 "From what has been provided, it appears that this application is
10:43:07 AM only a zoning change with which the District has no comment on
this application. AS THE PLANS CHANGE, WE WILL NEED TO
REVIEW ANY CHANGES. If any storm water is expected t flow into
the District facility located on the property, the District MUST be
consulted and the following will apply for this project.
For land uses from which storm water ("regulated water") is
proposed to be discharged, directly or indirectly, into District
facilities, the applicant/owner is advised:
a. The Grand Valley Drainage District has rights-of-way and/or
facilities potentially impacted by the proposed project/development.
b. The applicant must pay the District a $150 development review
fee before further review can occur.
c. If future information or plans require more than a cursory
review, the applicant will also have to pay 'administrative' fees, to
cover the time and costs incurred by the District in reviewing the
plans or application. Examples of administrative fees that applicant
may have to pay: District personnel costs, District costs of
consulting with engineers or other consultants; GIS, mapping and
field inspection staff time, etc.
d. Payment of development review fee or the administrative fees
does not mean the District will accept 'regulated' water, nor allow
the use of its facilities.
e. In addition, a right-of-way fee of $1 per linear foot of District
facilities in which regulated water from this development is
expected to flow must be paid. The District will calculate the
amount of this fee.
f. Before any regulated water is authorized to flow into any District
facility, each land owner must sign our Discharge
License/addendum which will be recorded at the applicant's
expense.
Unless the District's requirements are met, the applicant/owner can
expect that pipes, inlets or other structures conveying water to
District facilities will be unilaterally removed by the District at the
owner's expense, and the District may exercise other legal
remedies.
A copy of the discharge license, discharge license addendum and
50
District’s resolutions and regulations are available on the District
website: thedrainagedistrict.org
DAVE
REINERTSEN
WATER CLIFTON
MARK BARSLUND IRR 5-2-1 DRAIN
AUTH
8/26/2014 The Clifton Water District has no concerns at this time with this
11:44:14 AM request. However, without a number of units identified, comment
can not be made regarding any water infrastructure updates that
may be required for this project. As project gets better defined,
direct conversations with the District would be advised.
8/26/2014 Any disturbance of 1 (one) acre or more will require a CDPHE and a
1:03:21 PM 521 storm water permit.
BRIAN WOODS
SAN CLIFTON
8/27/2014 The Clifton Sanitation has no objections to the zoning request.
10:03:45 AM Additional comments will be provided when a defined project has
been developed regarding sanitary sewer service for this property.
SANATAM
KHALSA
IRR PALISADE
8/27/2014 No objection to rezoning request. We may have comments as the
5:33:09 PM project develops.
Shirley Beall
MC ADDRESSING
8/28/2014 No comments. Shirley/Addressing
10:38:30 AM
Daniel Sundstrom MC TRANS PLAN
9/3/2014 I do not have any objections to rezoning request, future
3:01:13 PM development will require dedication of right-of-way on Villa Street.
Also, future development will require street improvements to
include sidewalks to be consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood.
Future development will require the access on E 1/2 Road a major
collector road to be closed and new access off of Villa Street a local
road as required by Mesa County’s Road Access Policy.
4.5.3 – General Provisions of Access
3. In the development of existing residential parcels that are
located on minor collectors or above as defined by the ROW
classification map, access will be taken from the lower classification
roadway on an alignment or connector to that lower classification
roadway.
6. Parcels/lots with frontage on local road(s) may be permitted a
maximum of two access points from the local road. Both accesses
must be on the same road frontage.
8. Access from contiguous parcels under the same ownership or
control shall be treated as one parent tract for the purposes of
access permitting.
BRIAN RUSCHE
CITY GJ
PLANNING DIV
9/5/2014 City of Grand Junction - Community Development: The property is
3:04:09 PM located outside the Persigo 201 boundary and therefore is not
required to be annexed into the City. The proposed RMF-8 zone is
consistent with the Future Land Use map designation of Residential
Medium/High. No further comments.
MC DEV
ENGINEER
MC DEV
ENGINEER
9/8/2014 MC Development Engineering
11:06:02 AM No comments.
51
NO
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
52
APPLICANT
INFORMATION
53
54
55
PROJECT
REVIEW
56
MESA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Administration - Building - Engineering – Road and Bridge
Traffic - Planning - Solid Waste Management
200 S. Spruce Street • P.O. Box 20,000 • Grand Junction, Colorado 81502-5001
Ph (970) 244-1636 Fax (970) 244-1769
PROJECT REVIEW
August 19, 2014
(Revised September 18, 2014)
I.
PRO2013-0187 CUP WESTERN SLOPE FLAGSTONE, CAMEO QUARRY
CUP AMENDMENT, RAPID CREEK ROAD ACCESS
Property Owner:
Operator:
Representative:
Location:
Parcel#:
Zoning:
Planner:
Request:
Recommendation:
Rudolph Fontanari
Western Slope Flagstone
Trevor Grosse
3998 Rapid Creek Road
2709-344-00-070
AFT
Randy Price, Senior Planner
To amend the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for mining to allow
up to 5 gravel haul trucks per day from the Western Slope
Flagstone, Cameo Quarry to use Rapid Creek Road as a haul route
(Pursuant to Chapter 5.2.13 Mining and Extractive Uses)
Approval with Conditions
1
57
II.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING:
The property is zoned Agriculture Forestry Transitional (AFT) and is located at the mouth of
DeBeque Canyon, 3.5 miles northeast of the town of Palisade. The mine is located on a gravel
terrace 150’ above the Colorado River and up against the steep lower slopes of the Grand Mesa.
The gravel deposits are weathered basalt from the Grand Mesa deposited during the last ice age.
Gravel ranges from several ton boulders grading down to finer pea size. The mine predominantly
produces rip-rap but has a large stockpile of 1 inch crushed basalt suitable for railroad track
ballast. The gravel is underlain by sedimentary rocks that include sandstone and coal.
Coal mining was a major economic driver in the past for the town of Palisade. Nearby, there are
several coal mines that have been permanently closed. The mines are the Cameo, the Roadside,
and the Go-Boy that are quite close to this operation. The Roadside mine has undermined a good
portion of land within the permit area. The coal was mined by room and pillar method; the pillars
hold up the roof (all of the overburden up to the surface) until 50% of the coal is removed. When
that area is mined out, the operator will back out and “pull pillars” allowing the roof to collapse
and this creates subsidence at the surface. This often creates cracks and chimneys (holes). The
underground working extends over to the Ute Water treatment plant. The terrace that the Cameo
gravel operation is on was previously peach orchard. However, undermining has created cracks
that interfere with irrigation and if irrigation is attempted it tends to run down into the
undergrounds workings. Areas that have been undermined are not suitable for residential
structures because subsidence continues long after the area is mined and structures built in the
area may be damaged as differential settling may occur. Even small amounts of settling may
damage foundations. Subsidence propagates to the surface and spreads out so disturbance
extends out in a cone of depression usually at about 45 degrees. Structures may still be damaged
even if they are not directly undermined.
South of this gravel mine is the Ute Water treatment plant and the Palisade Water treatment
plants. Several waterlines cross the permit area. The Ute Water treatment plant receives
deliveries from Rapid Creek Road of Chlorine on large semi-tractor trailers an average of 2 per
week.
Other uses in this area are agriculture and residences. The Kokopelli Farm Market is located just
west of the gravel operation on land that adjoins land owned by the applicant. The Market uses
several of the structures that once served the Snowcap Coal Company’s Roadside Mine. The
portals have been sealed, backfilled and the mine waste piles have been reclaimed. Gay
Johnson’s truck stop is zoned C-2 and it is 1.25 miles north of the gravel operation.
There are 33 residences that access Rapid Creek Road between its intersection with Highway 6
and its termination past the Ute water treatment plant. At the end of Rapid Creek Road, there is
trailhead parking for the Rapid Creek Trailhead managed by the BLM.
The Western Slope Flagstone Cameo mine has two accesses, one to the south on Rapid Creek
Road and the other is a private road owned by the Rudolph Fontanari. The north road accesses to
the interchange on I-70 located at the Eagle Travel Stop. Commercial haul trucks operating from
2
58
the mine are currently only allowed to use the northern access. This was a condition of approval
of the original conditional use permit approved in 1995.
Rapid Creek Road is 1.8 miles from the intersection of Highway 6 to the end of County
maintenance. The first .7 miles is paved and the rest is gravel surfaced. 1,500 feet of the road
from the bridge at the Rapid Creek crossing up toward the Ute water treatment plant is signed
one lane and has a posted speed limit of 10 mph.
The US Postal Service stopped delivery of mail in 2010 to the residents along Rapid Creek Rd.
James Sample resident on Rapid Creek Road made an inquiry as to why mail service was
stopped. The Consumer Affairs representative in a letter attached at the end of this project report
stated that the route was evaluated by the Palisade Postmaster and that the route was
discontinued because it “posed a safety hazard to the carrier.” Eric Bruton, former Mesa County
Public Works Road and Bridge Supervisor, followed up on this letter and contacted S.L. Gross of
the US Postal Service who wrote the letter. S.L. Gross in her conversation with Bruton admitted
that in addition to the safety concerns that it was also a cost saving measure.
Mesa County Code Compliance Services has received numerous complaints in the past about
Rudy Fontanari, the owner of the mine, driving haul trucks loaded with gravel and many of the
complainants have felt that their safety had been jeopardized. As of the writing of this project
report, 20 written comments have been received from people living near the operation. All of the
comments are in opposition the proposal. Many of the letters describe incidents that they have
had with trucks on Rapid Creek Road. Many of these people have complained about the
operator in the past. All public comments are included within the hearing binder.
III.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting to amend the Western Slope Flagstone Cameo Quarry Condition Use
Permit to allow a maximum of 5 gravel haul trucks per day to use Rapid Creek Road as a haul
route. In 1995 the mine was approved for 25 truckloads per day and up to 150 truckloads per
day during periods of peak demand. The northern route was the only approved route in this CUP.
The northern route follows the gravel terrace that the mine is on north then down a switchback to
a road that Parallels I-70 then to the I-70 interchange at the Eagle Travel Stop. In 1995 a
stipulation was applied to that approval stating that:
MCM 95-103, stipulation #3 All commercial traffic excluding the owner shall not use Rapid
Creek Road to access the quarry site, but is required to use the private road to the north as
proposed.
The northern route is more convenient for trucks heading up valley toward DeBeque; but, for
trucks heading toward Palisade, a route on Rapid Creek would be shorter. To reach a location
near Highway 6 and Rapid Creek the haul distance would be 2 miles on the Rapid Creek route
versus 5.7 miles on the northern route. The proposed alternate route will save 3.7 miles on trips
heading down valley. The mine does not own property adjacent to Rapid Creek Road so access
3
59
will be across preexisting easements granted to Public Service. The applicant purchased the
Public Service property and claims the right to use these easements.
The mining permit was expanded in 2001 from 9.5 acres to 191 acres with the approval of
Conditional Use Permits C34-01 and C35-01. At this time all commercial traffic was to only use
the northern access.
Rapid Creek Road Westbound (downhill)
Beginning of Narrow Section
West (downhill) narrow portion of Rapid
Creek Road
4
60
Rapid Creek Road is paved from the intersection of highway 6 to the bridge that crosses Rapid
Creek for a distance of .7 miles. At the bridge, the road narrows to one lane and has a graveled
surface treated with Magnesium Chloride. The northbound road is signed “one lane bridge” and
is posted with a 10mph speed limit. After the bridge the road narrows and there are several
unmarked areas that can be used as a pullout should an oncoming vehicle be encountered. There
are several sections of roadway that appear too narrow for 2 automobiles to pass even less room
for a truck and automobile. There appears to be uncertain shoulder stability so a driver would be
taking a risk getting too close to the edge if the driver were trying to pass another car. There are
several areas that have vegetation growing close to the roadway that reduces sight distance
around corners. At 1600 feet beyond the bridge the road widens and there is a sign posted facing
the opposite direction “one lane road ahead 10 mph.” The maximum posted The posted speed
limit is 20 mph
The currently approved access is to the north on property owned by Rudy Fontanari. This
property fronts I-70 to the north. The road is gated 1,200 feet south of Gay Jonson’s Truck stop.
This has been the primary access point.
IV.
COMPLIANCE WITH MESA COUNTY CODE REQUIREMENTS:
Section 3.8.7 of the Land Development Code (2000, as amended) states that a Conditional
Use Permit may be approved by the Board of County Commissioners after considering the
following:
A.
The proposed use is not significantly different from adjacent uses in terms of
appearance, site design, operating characteristics (hours of operation, traffic
generation, noise, odor, dust, and other external impacts) or, if the use is different,
that any adverse impacts resulting from the use will be mitigated to the maximum
5
61
extent practical and reclamation of the site will be adequate for appropriate future
uses of the site where applicable.
The operator is requesting to allow 5 truckloads a day to access Rapid Creek Road. The
operator was previously approved to operate up to 150 trucks per day using the northern
route. The northern route uses private property owned by Rudy Fontanari. This haul route is
private and the public is not allowed on this roadway. There are no residences that access this
road. There are no concerns with public safety along this roadway. Rapid Creek Road is a
public roadway and provides access for 33 residences. This road is used by Ute Water and
Palisade Water treatment plants for the delivery of Chlorine, construction/ maintenance and
employee access. Rapid Creek is used by the public to access the trailhead for recreation and
the Palisade High School use this road for running up for track club training.
The Western Slope Flagstone Cameo Quarry has an existing access to the north that does not
conflict with other users. This route, if used to deliver gravel to the south, is 3.7 miles longer
than the proposed route on Rapid Creek. This route has been used for 19 years.
Portions of Rapid Creek Road are not suitable for two way truck traffic without
improvements to the roadway to meet County road standards. At the present time Mesa
County Public Works is completing a written assessment of the roadway. The written report
is expected to be completed by the MCPC hearing on September 25th. Initial conclusions are
that clearing vegetation to increase sight distance and widening certain sections of the
roadway will improve the safety factor to allow passage of two way truck traffic with the use
of the pullouts. The cost burden for the improvements would be carried by both the County
and Western Slope Flagstone. This would require the applicant to enter into a maintenance
agreement with Mesa County. A condition of approval for the CUP amendments will be:
Condition #1 Prior to using Rapid Creek Road as a haul route for carrying rock
product, Western Slope Flagstone must enter into an agreement with Mesa County.
The agreement will share costs with Mesa County for upgrading shoulders on
portions of Rapid Creek Road and removal of brush and vegetation along the
roadway to improve sight distance. Prior to commencing haul traffic, all work on
the roadway must be successfully completed and the work approved my Mesa
County Public Works. Haul traffic is limited to 5 trucks per day. This condition of
approval supersedes Condition #3 in Mesa County BoCC Resolution MCM 95-103.
This criterion can be met.
B.
Facilities and services (including sewage and waste disposal, recycling, domestic and
irrigation water [where available], gas, electricity, security measures, police and fire
protection, and roads and transportation, special fencing, and signage, as
applicable) shall be available upon completion of the project to serve the subject
property while maintaining adequate levels of service to proposed and existing
development during regular, periodic, and peak usages.
6
62
With improvements and maintenance as specified in the above condition of approval, Rapid
Creek Road can be used to convey truck traffic as proposed by the applicant.
C.
Access will be provided as necessary to prevent traffic hazards and to minimize
traffic congestion in public streets and alleys.
The proposed access location is and existing driveway at 3950 Rapid Creek Road has been
evaluated and meets Mesa County sight distance and dimensional requirements. A Mesa County
NOI has been given provisional approval contingent on a traffic analysis as requested by CDOT
and their approval of the access location at the intersection of Rapid Creek with Highway 6. A
condition of approval for this application is:
Condition #2 Prior to using Rapid Creek Road as a haul route limited to 5 trucks per
day, Western Slope Flagstone shall obtain approval of a CDOT access permit for the
intersection of Rapid Creek Road and Highway 6. Haul traffic will not use North River
Road and will only use Highway 6.
D.
Adequate assurances of on-going maintenance have been provided.
This criterion can be met with compliance with the condition of approval in Section 3.8.7(A)
above (condition #1) and compliance with previous Conditional Use Permit Approvals.
This criterion can be met with conditions of approval.
E.
Any significant adverse impacts on the natural environment will be mitigated to the
maximum extent practical, including whether soils and geologic suitability are
adequate for the proposed use, and whether prevailing winds might cause adverse
impacts on site and off-site.
This criterion has been met in previous Conditional Use Permit Approvals
F.
There is a need for the use on a community wide basis.
The Western Slope Flagstone Cameo Quarry provides rip-rap and gravel that is needed for
construction projects that are vital to a healthy economy.
This criterion has been met.
7
63
Section 5.2.13 Mining and Extractive Uses:
Mining and extractive uses shall be subject to the County's Commercial Mineral
Extraction Policy and the standards below:
A.
An excavation and rehabilitation plan shall be required for any mining or extractive
use.
This criterion has been met in previous Conditional Use Permit Approvals.
B. An excavation permit, if applicable, issued by the State of Colorado in conformance
with the Open Mining Land Reclamation Act, shall be required.
C. Excavation or deposit of overburden shall not be permitted within 30 feet of a boundary
of an adjacent property, easement, irrigation ditch, or right of way unless by written
agreement of the owner of such property, easement, irrigation ditch or right of way.
D. Excavation within 125 feet of a dwelling unit shall be prohibited unless by written
agreement of the owner and occupant of the residence; excavation involving the use of
rock crushers, asphalt plant, cement batch plant and other similar equipment within
250 feet of a dwelling unit shall be prohibited. The Decision Making Body shall be
authorized to require the installation of a Landscape Buffer (see Sec.7.2) when
necessary to control dust and mitigate other adverse impacts on surrounding areas.
E.
All excavation activities shall be set back at least 100 feet from road rights-of- ways
and the 100 year floodway of any watercourses. The watercourse setback may be
varied, based on Colorado Department of Wildlife comments concerning sitespecific factors. Existing trees and ground cover along the public road frontage and
drainage ways shall be preserved, maintained and supplemented, if necessary, from
the depth of the setback to protect against and reduce noise, dust and erosion.
F.
The operator shall submit a route plan (haul road plan) to the Public Works
Department and seek permission to use, for haulage, any public right of way which
is not designated by Mesa County as suitable for such haulage by reason of load
limit, dust, right of way, or pavement width or other relevant factors. The Public
Works Department may place reasonable restrictions on such right of way use.
Alternative haul routes shall be developed where the haul route impacts the health,
safety and welfare of the local area.
8
64
Mesa County Public Works Department is completing a written evaluation of Rapid Creek Road.
The preliminary conclusion is that with sufficient sight distance, additional work on the road
shoulder and with turnouts, the road can accommodate the proposed truck traffic. This requires
adherence to the posted speed limit on Rapid Creek Road of 20mph and 10mph in the posted
zone starting at the bridge across Rapid Creek.
This criterion can be met with compliance to the condition of approval in Section 3.8.7(A)
above (condition #1) and with the following condition:
Condition #3 Western Slope Flagstone haul trucks will not exceed the posted speed
limit on Rapid Creek Road of 20mph and 10mph in the posted zone starting at the
bridge across Rapid Creek.
G.
Haul roads within the premises shall be maintained in a reasonably dust-free
condition and shall be contained within the pit (after excavation allows) to the
maximum extent feasible. Depending on local conditions, this may include watering,
oiling, or paving.
No concerns were noted with the existing haul road within the pit.
H.
The operation shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. unless longer or
shorter hours of operation are approved as part of the Conditional Use Permit.
I.
The operator shall not excavate, store overburden, or excavate materials or dike in
such a manner as to cause damage to public facilities, or increase any drainage or
flooding on property not owned by the operator.
J.
Prior to starting excavation, where the operation is adjacent to subdivided or
developed commercial, residential, or industrial property, fencing may be required
to prevent the visibility of the mining operation, and buffering and screening may be
required if deemed necessary by the Planning Director, subject to appeal to the
Board of County Commissioners. The operator may fence, buffer or screen the
entire parcel, or fence only areas of excavation as it proceeds. None of which shall be
removed until rehabilitation has been completed.
9
65
K.
Once mining has been completed, the site shall not to be used as an area to stockpile
sand or gravel resources, if the operation is adjacent to subdivided property or to
developed commercial or residential property. The mining operator is to reclaim those
areas as soon as possible.
L.
Operations shall comply with noise, vibration, and other standards of Mesa County
and noise standards enumerated in CRS §25-12-101.
The applicant is required to comply with the noise and vibration standards in CRS § 25-12103.m.
M.
All air emissions shall comply with standards established by the Mesa County
Health Department, State Health Department, and Colorado Air Quality Control
Commission.
N.
All water uses and discharges shall conform to standards established by the State
Water Pollution Control Commission and the water laws of the State of Colorado.
O.
All slopes shall be stabilized and land remaining in the natural water level must be
revegetated in a manner compatible with the surrounding area.
P. A development schedule shall be submitted describing the life span of the plan in years
(ranges are acceptable), and, if applicable, the years per phase. Diligence in meeting
this schedule is required.
1. Up to a two year extension may be granted by the Planning Director if a written
request is submitted outlining the factors and reasons for the extension.
2. Requests for extensions up to five years and appeals of the Planning Director's
decision will be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners at a public
hearing.
This criterion has been met
Q.
If the use has not operated or if no material has been extracted within three years of
obtaining the Conditional Use Permit, and a request for extension has not been
received and approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the Conditional Use
10
66
Permit will expire. Extension requests shall provide information concerning the
factors and reasons for the request. The Board of County Commissioners will
consider these factors and reasons as well as the extent conditions have changed in
the area, if any, in granting extensions.
R.
At the time of Conditional Use Permit review for a proposed Mining or Extractive
Use Operation, the Board of County Commissioners shall require that the applicant
provide financial assurance adequate to ensure that any structures or roads
necessary to mitigate the impacts of the operation on nearby property owners or
residents will be constructed at those times stated in any related condition attached
to the Conditional Use Permit. Adequate financial security may include a deposit of
money, an irrevocable bond or letter of credit backed by a reputable bank or
financial institution, as determined by the County, or another form of financial
security acceptable to the County. The amount of financial security required shall
not exceed 125 percent of the estimated costs of taking the actions that it secures.
The Planning Director shall be authorized to execute a partial release or to reduce
the amount of the financial assurance from time to time as required construction or
rehabilitation activities are completed. The Planning Director shall release all or any
remaining amounts of any financial assurance within 30 days after completion of the
last construction or rehabilitation action that the financial assurance secures.
Section 3.1.17, General Approval Criteria, must also be considered for Conditional Use
Permit requests:
A.
complies with all applicable standards, provisions, and purposes of this Land
Development Code;
This criterion can be met 3.8.7 A, B, C
B.
is consistent with review agency comments;
Review agency comments are contained within the Board packet. The town of Palisade is
opposed to trucks traveling River Road and roadways within the town. Traveling Highway 6 is
acceptable. CDOT has requested a traffic study to evaluate the intersection of Highway 6 and
Rapid Creek Road. A traffic study has been submitted and is currently under review.
C.
is consistent with applicable intergovernmental agreements (IGA) between the
County and other entities.
11
67
This proposal is consistent with intergovernmental agreements Mesa County has with the BLM
and the town of Palisade. The BLM has not provided comments and Palisade’s comments are
included. Palisade opposes truck traffic on River Road and within the town of Palisade. Ttruck
traffic on Highway 6 south of Palisade is acceptable.
V.
REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS:
All review comments received are a part of the hearing packet and the file.
VI.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mesa County has received 20 letters of objection to the proposed use of Rapid Creek road as a
haul route. These letters are included as part of the hearing packet.
VII.
PROJECT RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Division recommends Approval with Conditions of the Western Slope Flagstone
Cameo Quarry use of Rapid Creek Road as a proposed haul route for a maximum of 5 trucks per
day with the following conditions:
1. Prior to using Rapid Creek Road as a haul route for carrying rock product,
Western Slope Flagstone must enter into an agreement with Mesa County. The
agreement will share costs with Mesa County for upgrading shoulders on portions
of Rapid Creek Road and removal of brush and vegetation along the roadway to
improve sight distance. Prior to commencing haul traffic, all work on the roadway
must be successfully completed and the work approved my Mesa County Public
Works. Haul traffic is limited to 5 trucks per day. This condition of approval
supersedes Condition #3 in Mesa County BoCC Resolution MCM 95-103.
2. Prior to using Rapid Creek Road as a haul route limited to 5 trucks per day,
Western Slope Flagstone shall obtain approval of a CDOT access permit for the
intersection of Rapid Creek Road and Highway 6. Haul traffic will not use North
River Road and will only use Highway 6.
3. Western Slope Flagstone haul trucks will not exceed the posted speed limit on Rapid
Creek Road of 20mph and 10mph in the posted zone starting at the bridge across
Rapid Creek.
12
68
The bases for this recommendation:
The petition complies with or has the ability to comply with the criterion in Section 3.8.7A – F,
Section 5.2.13 A-R, and Section 3.1.17.A - C of the Mesa County Land Development Code
(2000, as amended).
Summary
Conditional Use Permit Criteria 3.8.7
A.
The proposed use is not significantly different
from adjacent uses in appearance, site design,
and operating characteristics or adequately
mitigates adverse impacts
B.
Facilities and services are available
C.
D.
E.
F.
Condition
Can be met
Can be met
1
1,2,3
Access is provided to prevent traffic hazards
and minimize traffic congestion
Can be met
2
Adequate assurances of on-going maintenance
are provided
Can be met
1
Significant adverse impacts on the natural
environment have been mitigated to the
extent practical
A need for the use on a community-wide basis
has been established
Condition
Has been met
Has been met
General Approval Criteria 3.1.17
A.
Can be met
B.
C.
Can be met
Has been met
Mining and Extractive Uses Section 5.2.13
A.
Excavation plan
B.
State excavation permit
C.
30’ from boundary
D.
250’ from houses
E.
100’ from roads/floodway
F.
Haul plan
G.
Dust-free condition
H.
Hours of operation
Has been met
Has been met
Has been met
Has been met
Has been met
Can be met
Has been met
Has been met
1,2,3
3
13
69
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
Flooding
Fencing
Reclaim as soon as possible
Noise & vibration standards
Air Emissions
Water uses and discharges
Slope stabilization
Development schedule
Operation within 3 years
Financial assurance
Has been met
Has been met
Has been met
Has been met
Has been met
Has been met
Has been met
Has been met
Has been met
Has been met
IX.
MCPC RECOMMENDATION (8/28/14) CONTINUED (9/25/14)
X.
BOCC ACTION (10/14/14)
14
70
15
71
16
72
\
17
73
18
74
19
75
HEARING
NOTICE
76
Western Flagstone, Cameo Quarry CUP Amendment
2014-0187 CUP
August 8, 2014
Notification/Parcel Map
Notification Buffer
Legend
2500 Ft. Buffer
Parcels
Roads
BLM Land
Rapid Creek Road
0.45
0
0.45
0.9
1.35
"
1.8
Miles
77
PARCEL_NUM OWNER
MAILING
CITY
ST
2937-022-00-051 ALLEN PATRICIA H
823 RAPID CREEK RD PALISADE
CO
2937-112-00-001 ANDREATTA-GOBLE AMY 751 CLYMER DR
PALISADE
CO
2937-022-00-082 ARMSTRONG OTTO LINN 839 RAPID CREEK RD PALISADE
CO
2937-022-00-121 ATCHISON EMERY T
CO
2937-022-00-117 BATES FAMILY REVOC TRUST853 RAPID CREEK RD RT PALISADE
CO
2937-022-00-092 BATES GARY
CO
2937-023-00-102 BEOUGHER JAMES W
822 HIGHWAY 6 AND 24PALISADE
CO
2709-252-00-914 BLM
2815 H RD
GRAND JUNCTICO
2937-022-00-116 BODIE DENNIS E
CO
2937-022-00-020 BOLLINGER DANIEL F
CO
2937-022-00-016 BORCHARDT LEE B
CO
2937-022-00-109 BORCHARDT LEE B
CO
2937-023-00-032 BROOKER CHRISTINA A
CO
2937-034-00-022 BROPHY BRADLEY
3916 HICKMAN RD
PALISADE
CO
2937-034-00-040 BUNCH ALAN W
PO BOX 1407
PALISADE
CO
2709-343-00-062 CAREY JASON P
PO BOX 2123
GLENWOOD SPCO
2937-022-00-074 CARLSON KENNETH PARKER 861 RAPID CREEK RD PALISADE
CO
2937-023-00-066 CHRISCO CARL ADRAIN
CO
2937-023-00-038 CHRISTIANSON VINEYARDS L3907 N RIVER RD
PALISADE
CO
2937-031-00-928 COLORADO DEPT OF HIGHW606 S 9TH ST STE 1
GRAND JUNCTICO
2937-012-00-040 CONNER RUSSELL D
CO
2937-034-00-058 COOLEY BILLY R
PO BOX 521
PALISADE
CO
2937-022-00-065 COREY JUDY ANN TRUSTEE 817 RAPID CREEK RD PALISADE
CO
2937-034-01-005 DISTEFANO THOMAS L JR 1024 BUCK RUN RD
CANONSBURG PA
2937-023-00-031 ECORD ARRAGON
234 28 3/4 RD
GRAND JUNCTICO
2937-021-00-090 ERIKSON STEPHEN A
CO
2937-022-00-075 FLESHER PAUL F
CO
2937-021-00-102 FONTANARI RUDOLOPH TRU3316 E 3/4 RD
CLIFTON
CO
2709-353-00-077 FONTANARI RUDOLPH JR 3316 E 3/4 RD
CLIFTON
CO
2937-031-00-947 GRAND VALLEY WATER USER1147 24 RD
GRAND JUNCTICO
2937-034-01-006 GRAY RICHARD
PO BOX 704
PALISADE
CO
2937-031-00-052 HARRISON BRANT
CO
2937-021-00-117 HASSTEDT JOHN R
CO
2937-023-00-103 HENDERSON DALE W
CO
2937-022-00-025 HIGGINS HENRY C
PO BOX 250
PALISADE
CO
2937-023-00-072 HODGES PETER R
CO
2937-022-00-079 JONES LAWRENCE M
CO
2937-023-00-096 KEDDY MICHAEL D
2490 CLUB RD
LOS ALAMOS NM
2937-012-00-041 KING MATTHEW C
CO
2937-012-00-046 LARSEN JON A
5 N HIGHWAY 101 UNIT WARRENTON OR
2937-023-00-113 LINCOLN CURTIS
PO BOX 543
PALISADE
CO
2937-023-00-056 MATERN AIMEE L
CO
2937-031-00-946 PALISADE IRRIGATION DISTRPO BOX 266
PALISADE
CO
2937-022-00-101 PINNT TYSON
CO
2937-022-00-080 PRINSTER DELORES HELEN 839 1/2 RAPID CREEK RDPALISADE
CO
2937-022-00-104 PROCTOR R COLE
CO
ZIP
81526
81526
81526-9402
81526-9405
81526
81526-9400
81526
81506
81526
81526-9400
81526-9400
81526-9400
81526-8770
81526-9801
81526-1407
81602-2123
81526-9400
81526-9401
81526-7700
81501-7768
81526
81526-0521
81526
15317
81503-2985
81526-9405
81526-9400
81520-8011
81520-8011
81505
81526-0704
81526-9401
81526
81526-9401
81526
81526-9401
81526-9400
87544-1502
81526-9405
97146-9313
81526
81526-8770
81526
81526
81526-9402
81526-9401
78
2709-344-00-090 PROVIDENCE PLACE INC
860 RAPID CREEK RD
2937-032-00-001 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY O550 15TH ST STE 1000
2937-022-00-105 RANCK DOYLE L
160 NANCY LN
2937-022-00-085 REAMS LIVING TRUST
899 24 1/2 RD
2937-012-00-045 SAMPLE SHARON B
3999 RAPID CREEK RD
2937-034-01-004 SELAN DERRICK
PO BOX 1062
2937-023-00-097 SLOVER DAN G
3993 N RIVER RD
2937-034-00-041 SPANGLER C C
2177 H RD
2937-022-00-024 STACK DONALD V
841 RAPID CREEK RD
2937-023-00-928 STATE HIGHWAY DEPT
606 S 9TH ST
2937-022-00-078 STEPHEN LUKE A
849 RAPID CREEK RD
2937-022-00-099 STOUT JOE F III
867 RAPID CREEK RD
2937-022-00-100 TANKERSLEY EDWIN C
878 RAPID CREEK RD
2937-021-00-941 TOWN OF PALISADE
PO BOX 128
2937-031-00-942 TOWN OF PALISADE
175 E 3RD ST
2937-012-00-947 UTE WATER CONSERVANCY PO BOX 460
2937-012-00-047 WILSON EDWARD NORTON 3118 E RD
2937-034-00-056 WISE DARRELL B
PO BOX 1506
2937-022-00-027 WOODBURN FRANK
3598 G RD
2937-034-00-057 YELK WILLIAM D REVOC TRUPO BOX 502
2937-022-00-062 YOUNG BENNETT H
PO BOX 178
PALISADE
CO
DENVER
CO
NEW COLUMBIPA
GRAND JUNCTICO
PALISADE
CO
PALISADE
CO
PALISADE
CO
GRAND JUNCTICO
PALISADE
CO
GRAND JUNCTICO
PALISADE
CO
PALISADE
CO
PALISADE
CO
PALISADE
CO
PALISADE
CO
GRAND JUNCTICO
GRAND JUNCTICO
PALISADE
CO
PALISADE
CO
EAGLE
CO
MOLINA
CO
81526
80202-4256
17856
81505
81526-9405
81526
81526
81505-9702
81526-9402
81501
81526-9400
81526-9400
81526-9401
81526
81526
81502
815046148
81526-1506
81526-9790
81631-0502
81646-0178
79
REVIEW
AGENCY
COMMENTS
80
81
82
Review Agency Comments
Date
User
7/18/2014 10:35:56 AM
mcdeveng
Note
MC Development Engineering
EditDelete Public
No comments.
The additional truck traffic will generate
noise, per “Resolution No 95-103, Book 2155
Page 540, item 2 states “The approved hours
of operation are 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. as
proposed”. The existing hours of operation
should not change with this amendment and
the applicant should be aware of the
surrounding neighbors and possible noise
concerns.
The private road is a gravel road and
Western Slope Flagstone will be required to
maintain the road for dust control.
The Notice of Intent (NOI) has the following
conditions of approval and the applicant must
comply with each of the following items;
1.The applicant is required to obtain a
Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) access permit to access Highway 6
from Rapid Creek Rd prior to applying for the
“Road Access Notice to Proceed” (NTP).
Once obtained the applicant must submit the
CDOT Access Permit to Mesa County
Planning.
7/14/2014 10:55:00 AM
Daniel.Sundstrom
2.Applicant agrees to install the access from
the Private Road via Easements in
accordance with the applicable sections of
the Mesa County Standard Specifications for
Road and Bridge Construction (excerpts
attached). The finished driveway apron
surface:
a)Shall slope down and away from the public
roadway at a two percent (2%) grade for a
distance of six (6) feet minimum.
b)Shall be a minimum of 6 inches of Class 6
aggregate (3/4 inch road base) compacted.
c)Shall withstand all weather conditions and
resist the tracking of surface material on the
County roadway.
d)Shall readily accommodate the weight of
the largest design vehicle expected to use
the access.
e)Shall measure a minimum width of 18 feet
at the edge of pavement or road surface
(excluding radii), maintained to the County
road Right-Of-Way. The maximum width of
the apron at the edge of pavement is 30 feet.
3.The applicant is responsible to ensure that
mud, dirt, rocks and other debris are not
allowed to enter onto the roadway, nor be
tacked onto the roadway by haul vehicles and
all other equipment. If found to be in violation
this access permit may be revoked. The
applicant will be responsible for removal and
83
cleanup of any mud, dirt, rocks and other
debris found on the roadway.
4.If and when the proposed conditional use
permit is revised and approved, a Road
Access Notice to Proceed (NTP) will be
required prior to commencing work within the
right-of-way. A Notice of Intent to Issue a
Road Access Permit (NOI) approves the
location of the access.
5.This NOI approves the location of the
connection to the public road system. This
NOI is in no way is to be construed as
approving or revising the proposed
conditional use permit for this project.
6.Intersection sight distance standards must
be adhered to at all times. The applicant is
responsible for ensuring that obstructions to
visibility that pose a hazard to the travelling
public are resolved.
7/2/2014 2:40:27 PM
droussin
7/2/2014 9:51:20 AM
trudy.brown
3/20/2014 4:48:34 PM
Randy.Price
1/16/2014 9:39:03 AM
Randy.Price
7.Any change in the number of access points,
location, or use shall require further review by
the Mesa County Planning Division.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the
Western Slope Flagstone. The applicant is
proposing a new route that will use Rapid
Creek Road (County Road). Their CUP
allows for 500 trucks a year. This appears
that this will effect the intersection of US 6C
and Rapid Creek Road. Please have the
applicant provide a traffic study to document
the impacts of the new use on the County
Road. If the traffic volume changes by 20%
then a new access permit would be required.
If you have any questions, please let me
know.
Mesa County Code Compliance Services has
a closed case file (CE2011-0151) regarding
the property at 3998 Rapid Creek Rd that
was established regarding the potential
violation of their CUP. Please contact Tony
Piotrowski with Code Compliance Services
should you need more information regarding
the case file.
Per our meeting today, the applicant will
survey the easements and provide a map to
the planning department.
After Mesa County completes road
improvements to Rapid Creek Road, the
applicant will have a road assessment to
determine whether Rapid Creek road can
handle the haul traffic traffic safely.
Met with Trevor and discussed what the
Planning Div would like to see addresed in
the narrative. Trevor also picked up a copy of
the CUP file tha ws approved by the BOCC in
2001.
84
12/19/2013 1:57:40 PM
Vicki.Audino
Trevor,
Plesae upload the items from the checklist.
Thank You Vicki
85
86
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
8/11/2014
Mesa County Mail - Fwd: Western Slope Flagstone Amendment
Randy Price <[email protected]>
Fw d: Western Slope Flagstone Am endm ent
1 message
[email protected] <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:25 AM
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: [email protected]
Cc:
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 09:17:32 -0600
Subject: Western Slope Flagstone Amendment
Cole and Bernice Proctor, property owners who live at 880 Rapid Creek Road, are opposed to the Fontanari's
request for increased use of Rapid Creek Road for hauling rock from their quarry.
Rapid Creek Road is narrow, winding road with many blind curves and a narrow bridge which is not easy to
navigate. The upper end of the road just past the bridge is marked as a one-lane road. Three years ago the US
Post Office determined that this one-lane road was not safe for their mail delivery trucks and refused to deliver
mail past this point. A mail delivery station was installed near the bridge to help resolve the problem, but the
road is still a one-lane road despite the improvements made in 2013.
The road is busier now than it was in 2009 when we moved here because the area has been promoted for tours,
foot races, bicycle races and sightseeing. A walking trail was established within 1/2 mile of the Rapid Creek
Road, which has drawn much interest to the vicinity. The Palisade high school track and field team and the
wrestling team run up and down this road for endurance training. The point being that traffic has changed from
when permits were issued in years past but the road basically has not been upgraded.
On more than one occasion we have observed that the driver of the Fontanari dump truck (which has a distinctive
grill with big teeth pattern in chrome) has disregarded the posted speed limit. He has pulled up close behind us
in an attempt to intimidate us into driving faster, which is not safe.
It is our opinion that the majority of Rapid Creek Road users will be better served if this permit is not allowed
because the road is not suitable to accommodate any more trucks hauling loads on a regular basis driven by
bully truck drivers.
Respectfully, Cole and Bernice Proctor
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3a64957206&view=pt&search=inbox&th=147c5aca98915005&siml=147c5aca98915005
118
1/1
119
120
121
122
123
124
8/14/2014
Mesa County Mail - Western Slope Flagstone, Cameo Quarry Conditional Use Permit Amendment, Rapid Creek Road Access file #PR02013-0187
Randy Price <[email protected]>
Western Slope Flagstone, Cam eo Quarry Conditional Use Perm it
Am endm ent, Rapid Creek Road Access file #PR02013-0187
1 message
NELLA SPRINGER <[email protected]>
Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 10:46 AM
Mesa County Planning Division Department of Public Works
August 8, 2014
Mr. Price,
My wife and I have been residents of 849 Rapid Creek Road for 26 years and we would like to express our
concerns regarding Mr. Fontanari and his Conditional Use Permit application/amendment to use Rapid Creek Rd.
for his haul route, thus increasing the amount of traffic and safety concerns on this road. We were unable to
attend the Neighborhood Informational Meeting on Tuesday, July 29, 2014 in Palisade but would like to express
that we are NOT in favor of this idea for several reasons.
Rapid Creek Road is not designed for heavy two way traffic. This type and all other traffic on this road has
noticeably increased over the years. Our property sits directly above a fair portion of the road and it is quite visible
from our location. This road is narrow, has multiple blind spots with limited visibility in areas and causes grave
concern over the ability for big haul capacity trucks to react promptly and safely in emergency situations in order
to avoid causing an incident/s with wildlife and/or people. People who are walking or bicycling, school kids
practicing/conditioning for school related athletics by jogging up and down the road, hikers and seasonal hunters,
ATV riders accessing the roads above the Ute Water Treatment Plant or someone simply pulling out onto Rapid
Creek Road. Adverse weather conditions such as excessive rain showers resulting in "gully washers" that cover
the pavement with gravel and dirt/sand debris as well as snow pack, icy conditions in the winter months raise the
probability of even more adverse situations and safety concerns! Quite simply, Rapid Creek Road is not
designed nor built for heavy traffic.
It is our strong opinion that this proposal submitted by Mr. Fontanari WILL increase the risk for those of us who
use the road as part of our daily lives and we do not wish to risk further challenges with any more big trucks that
take up 3/4 of the road. Rapid Creek Road already has enough heavy traffic with the Ute Water Plant business.
We've both already had some of those frightening "challenges", ESPECIALLY when some of the existing heavy
haul trucks don't necessarily see it necessary to follow the posted speed limit signs! Yet to mention the even
more dangerous stretch of road that lies North as it goes over Rapid Creek within a series of sharp turns and
limited road improvements.
We urge you to disallow any type of further increases in heavy commercial traffic on Rapid Creek Road using the
existing roads. A road which was designed for the agricultural forest transitional land that surrounds it.
Thank you and sincerely,
Luke Stephen and Nella Springer
849 Rapid Creek Road
Palisade, Co 81526
(970)-361-2255
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=3a64957206&view=pt&search=inbox&th=147b683df54e44bb&siml=147b683df54e44bb
125
1/1
126
127
128
129
130
131
APPLICANT
INFORMATION
132
Introduction
Proposed a review of Resolution No MCM.2001-99 not due to a proposed change
in the conditional use permit document per se; rather the proposed change is to the
supporting documents, specifically the narrative and accompanying plans
submitted as part of the Mesa County Development Application:
1 – Narrative, Section 5 – “Site Access”,
2 – Narrative, Section 9 – “Transportation”, and
3 – any other items relating to exclusive use of the haul road to the north.
Purpose
The application is intended to be an extension of an existing conditional use
permit approved by resolution no. MCM 2001-99. The existing conditional use
permit was processed as Planning Department Application C34-01 and C35-01.
Site Location
The site is located south and east of the I-70 corridor, southeast of the former
Cameo Electric Generating Station, and north of the Ute Water Conservancy
District Rapid Creek Filter Plant. The site consists of a high mesa which slopes
northerly at 5-6% grade toward the Colorado River and I-70 and also slopes
southerly toward Rapid Creek. The parcels include the permitted quarry are
contiguous and contain commercially valuable alluvial deposits of basalt mineral
origination from the slopes of Grand Mesa north of Rapid Creek drainage basin.
Site Access
Private access to the site via Rapid Creek Road has been allowed for the operator
and employees; however, commercial traffic has been directed north toward an I70 access road. The 4000’ access road has been maintained as part of the
133
operations of the quarry. Proposed is the allowance of some commercial traffic
on Rapid Creek Road using the existing roads (owned by the operator, and/or
used historically and/or under easement) that already permit private access. This
access would minimize winter driving hazards associated with the haul road to the
north, as well as minimizing haul distances and expenses associated with a
circuitous route to the local market. Rapid Creek Road underwent significant
improvements during 2013 to accommodate industrial/commercial traffic to and
from the Ute Water Filter plant. Traffic that would be re-routed from the north
haul road onto the Rapid Creek Road would be: ten-ton flat bed truck and/or
dump truck used in support of quarry operations primarily in the Rapid Creek
basin; maintenance vehicles (ie water trucks, backhoes); other passenger vehicles
supporting quarry operations; and ten-ton flatbed truck and/or dump truck for use
directly related to demand for quarry materials. At most, traffic from this
proposal is estimated at 5 trucks per day. Dust control on the private access roads
would be maintained with a water truck as needed, and gravel would be used to
control mud.
Compatibility of Land Use
Proposed that Rapid Creek Road will be used for commercial transportation to
and from the quarry, and that the traffic will have an impact similar to current
commercial traffic generated by the Ute Water Filter plant (although average
daily volume of traffic would typically be less). Continued use of the I-70 access
road will continue, but will likely decrease in volume as some traffic would be re-
134
directed to use the Rapid Creek Road access to the south. Dust generated on the
private access roads will be controlled with a water truck as needed. Maintenance
on the private roads connecting the quarry with Rapid Creek Road will continue
as part of quarry operations, and nominal road maintenance costs for Rapid Creek
Road will be non-existent.
Additional Notes
•
At most, traffic from this proposal is estimated at 5 trucks per day,. Dust
control on the private access roads would be maintained with a water truck as
needed, and gravel would be used to control mud.
•
Entry onto Rapid Creek Road from the south is via private road.
135

9-25-14 - Mesa County

Transcription

Similar documents

verde creek ranch kerr county, tx - 287 ac +

Slotomania Big Win - Bingo Card Game For Ipad

2014 GJRCC Annual Report

Conceptual Map - West Creek Business Park

A → south to Cimarron (red roofs are the Philmont Scout Ranch) E

2016 Spa Creek Clean Water PaddleFEST

1989 Issue 4 part a - Mesa County Genealogical Society

Astro Jump Pony Ride Designated Area

Lloydminster Grand Opening Invitation

Sclerology Basics Class 2015