Board of

MESA COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS Colorado

AGENDA TUESDAY JUNE 23, 2015

LAND USE 544 Rood Avenue, Public Hearing Room 9:00 a.m.

Call Meeting to Order: Deletions from Agenda: Additions to Agenda: Approval of Minutes: 1. Land Use Hearing, June 9, 2015

LAND USE ITEMS

NOTE: Copies of Staff Report(s) for Land Use Items are available on the back table within the hearing room.

CONTINUED TO ITEM(S): NONE

WITHDRAWN ITEM(S):

2015-0051 CUP GROUND HOG GULCH CENTRALIZED COMPLETION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Property Owner(s):Piceance Energy, LLC Representative(s): Lorne Prescott, Olsson and Associates Location: 67657 E Highway 330, Collbran, 81624 (13 miles east of Collbran) Parcel #: 2661-282-00-319 Zoning: AFT Planner: Randy Price, Senior Planner, 970 244-1759 [email protected] Request: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a water storage facility. Water will be stored in up to 150 frac. tanks on a 7.2 acre pad. Withdrawn by applicant.

**PLEASE NOTE: THERE IS LIMITED FREE PUBLIC PARKING ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 6TH STREET AND WHITE AVENUE**

BOCC – Land Use June 23, 2015 Page 2 of 4

CONSENT ITEM(S): The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Board to spend its time on the more complex items. These items are generally perceived as non-controversial and can be approved by a single motion. The petitioners have agreed to all of the staff recommendations on these projects. The public or the Board Members may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda for individual consideration.

NOTICE: If an applicant agrees to have a project placed on the Consent Agenda for the Mesa County Planning Commission and it is approved on that Agenda, the project is placed on the Consent Agenda for the Board of County Commissioners. If an applicant decides to remove the item from the Board Consent Agenda, the project will be referred back to the Mesa County Planning Commission and rescheduled for a new hearing date. NONE

HEARING ITEMS:

PRESENTATION RULES: Due to the volume of items to be heard the following restrictions may be applied to help expedite the hearing process:

a) Where practical, presentations by staff and petitioners will be limited to 15 minutes or less. Petitioners are asked to not repeat presentation information that the staff has correctly presented. Please address the clarification to the staff's presentation, new information or new developments to the project, and the staff and agency review comments and recommendations.

b) Responses in favor or in opposition to the proposal will be limited to approximately 3 minutes each. We prefer only new information to be presented. A single speaker may be selected on behalf of organized groups.

1. 2015-0016 CUP BATES MANUFACTURING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Property Owner(s): Albert and Sondra Bates Location: 1875 M Road (SW corner of the intersection of M Road and 19 Road) Zoning: AFT Planner: Randy Price, (970)244-1759, [email protected] Request: For a Conditional Use Permit for a welding shop in the AFT. Pursuant to Mesa County land use table 5.1 under Industrial, Indoor Operations and Storage. Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions and Adoption of Resolution MCPC Recommendation: Approval with Conditions, 7-0

2. 2015-0056 VA GRADY DRIVE VACATION OF RIGHT OF WAY Property Owner(s):Amy Hibberd Location: 68129 Vega Vista, Collbran, CO. 81624 (Grady Drive & Vega Vista Drive) Zoning: AFT Planner: Jeff Hofman, 970.254.4192, [email protected] Request: To vacate a section of Grady Drive in the Vega Park Subdivision. The area BOCC – Land Use June 23, 2015 Page 3 of 4

requested to be vacated is the northeastern end of Grady Drive and was not developed as a road in this area. The total amount of the request consists of 6,060 square feet. Staff Recommendation: Approval and Adoption of Resolution

3. 2015-0061 VA BURBANK STREET & ALLEY VACATION OF RIGHT OF WAY Property Owner(s):Charles W. Peterson and the Lily Silzell Trust Representative: Eddie Fitzpatrick Location: 1272 & 1278 M ¼ Rd, Loma, CO. 81524 (Near M ¼ Rd & Rail Rd Right of Way) Zoning: AFT Planner: Jeff Hofman, 970.254.4192, [email protected] Request: To vacate Burbank Street between Patterson Street on the west and the Rail Road Right of Way on the east and the adjoining north-south alley in the Loma Townsite. Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions and Adoption of Resolution

4. 2015-0078 CPA DOUBLE CREEK CONCEPT PLAN APPEAL Property Owner: Design/Engineering LLC Representative: Keith Elhers Location: 1255 17 ½ Road, Fruita, 81521 (17½ and L½ Roads) Zoning: AFT Planner: Linda Dannenberger, 244-1771, [email protected] Request: Appeal of an administrative decision that denied the Double Creek Estates Major Subdivision Concept Plan application. Staff Recommendation: Uphold staff’s administrative decision and Adoption of Resolution

BRIEFING(S): NONE

ROAD PETITION(S): NONE

RESOLUTION(S): C154-78 RELEASING PROPERTY FROM SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT AND GUARANTEE, Racquet Club Apartments

C70-97 RELEASING PROPERTY FROM DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT AND GUARANTEE. KN Energy Park

UNSCHEDULED BUSINESS: Please present your comments within ten (10) minutes.

BOCC – Land Use June 23, 2015 Page 4 of 4

ADJOURN

THE COMMISSIONERS MAY TAKE A LUNCH BREAK, IF THE MEETING IS NOT COMPLETE.

CERTIFICATION OF POSTING On June 18, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., Stephanie Reecy did post the above AGENDA as public notice of the Date meeting. The official notice is placed on the East Entrance bulletin board at 544 Rood Avenue, Grand Junction, CO and a courtesy copy added to the Mesa County website at www.mesacounty.us/BoCCagendas/

______Stephanie Reecy

Minutes JUNE 9, 2015 Approved:

Audio

CALL MEETING TO ORDER

At 9:07 a.m., Chair Rose Pugliese called to order a regular Land Use Hearing of the Board of Mesa County Commissioners at the Mesa County Courthouse, Public Hearing Room, 544 Rood Avenue, Grand Junction, Colorado. Those present included Commissioner Scott McInnis, Linda Dannenberger, Planning Division Director; J. Patrick Coleman, County Attorney; Sundae Montgomery, Clerk to the Board. Minutes prepared by Sundae Montgomery. *Commissioner John Justman was excused from the Land Use Hearing.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES(:10)

May 26, 2015

COMMISSIONER MCINNIS MOVED TO ADOPT THOSE MINUTES AS WRITTEN, CHAIR PUGLIESE SECONDED, MOTION PASSES.

LAND USE HEARING ITEMS (:35)

Hearing Items and recorded resolutions approved by the Board of County Commissioners are on file at the Mesa County Clerk's Office.

CONSENT ITEMS

1. 2015-0054 CUP HARRISON CREEK WATER TREATMENT FACILITY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT * Item moved to Individual Hearing Items

COMMISSIONER MCINNIS MOVED THAT 2015-0054 BE MOVED FROM CONSENT TO GENERAL AGENDA; CHAIR PUGLIESE SECONDED, MOTION PASSES.

2. 2015-0036 VA CRIDER VACATION OF RIGHT OF WAY Property Owner: Mesa County Adjacent Property Owners: Mel Crider, Carol Crider & Chelsea Manahan Grantee Beneficiary; Perry H. Crider, Grantee Beneficiary; Doug Jones; and Dennis & Martha Hardrick Representative: Carol Crider Location: 1601 14 Road, 1603 14 Road, 1609 14 Road & 1376 O½ Road, Loma, 81524 (P & 14 Roads) Zoning: AFT Planner: Christie Barton, Senior Planner

A request for vacation of the 60-foot wide P Road proclaimed right of way from 14 Road West to the 13½ Road alignment. *continued from 5/21/2015* Staff Recommendation: Approval with One Condition and Adoption of Resolution.

Page 1 of 3

Christie Barton, Senior Planner, confirmed that the item was continued to allow time for comments from Grand Valley Irrigation. Grand Valley Irrigation had no objections.

RESOLUTION – 2015-0036 VA – CRIDER VACATION OF RIGHT OF WAY (Reception No. 2726871; File No. BOCC 2015-84)

CHAIR PUGLIESE MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED, COMMISSIONER MCINNIS SECONDED, MOTION PASSES.

INDIVIDUAL HEARING ITEMS (4:30)

1. 2015-0054 CUP HARRISON CREEK WATER TREATMENT FACILITY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Property Owner(s): Piceance Energy Representative(s): Lorne Prescott for Olsson Associates Location: 69679 E. Hwy 330, Collbran, 81624 (E. Hwy 330 & Harrison Creek Rd) Zoning: AFT Planner: Randy Price, Senior Planner

This is a request to approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) amendment to construct four water impoundments to store both fresh and produced water used for drilling, completion, and production operations associated with natural gas wells. Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions and Adoption of Resolution; MCPC Recommendation: Approval with Conditions, 7-0.

Randy Price, Senior Planner, entered into the record Project File 2015-0054, Project Review, Mesa County Land Development Code, Land Use Plan, and a Power Point Presentation (Exhibit A).

Chair Pugliese and Commissioner McInnis requested an addition to the conditions of the Resolution. Tilda Evans, Olsson Associates, and Wayne Bankert, Piceance Energy, provided assistance with the revision of the Resolution.

RESOLUTION – 2015-0054 CUP – HARRISON CREEK WATER TREATMENT FACILITY CUP (Reception No. 2726872; File No. BOCC 2015-85)

COMMISSIONER MCINNIS MOVED TO APPROVE ADOPTION OF THE APPLICATION 2015-0054 CUP HARRISON ETC. AND THE RESOLUTION AS AMMENDED; CHAIR PUGLIESE SECONDED, MOTION PASSES.

RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL

RESOLUTION - 2015-0049 – UE RETHERFORD EASEMENT (Reception No. 2726873; File No. BOCC 2015-86)

CHAIR PUGLIESE MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED; COMMISSIONER MCINNIS SECONDED, MOTION PASSES.

ADJOURN

Page 2 of 3

With no further business to come before the Board, Chair Pugliese adjourned the meeting at 9:45 a.m.

Sheila Reiner, Mesa County Clerk & Recorder

______Sundae Montgomery Rose Pugliese Clerk to the Board Chair

For complete details on any item, click on the audio link at the beginning of the document. Agendas, minutes and recorded webcasts can be found online at: http://www.mesacounty.us/commissioners/. Please note that listed recorded times are approximate.

Page 3 of 3

LAND USE ITEMS

June 23, 2015 9:00 A.M.

544 Rood Avenue Grand Junction, Co.

1 BoCC Rolling Calendar

June 23, 2015 Board of County Commissioner's Hearing - 544 Rood Ave - Hearing Room Project # Project Name Planner Status 2015-0016 CUP Bates Manufacturing Conditional Use Permit Randy OK 2015-0056 VA Grady Drive Vacation of Right of Way Jeff OK 2015-0061 VA Burbank Street Vacation of Right of Way Jeff OK 2015-0078 CPA Double Creek Estates Appeal Christie OK 2015-0051 CUP Ground Hog Gulch Centralized Completion Conditional Use Permit Randy withdrawn

July 7, 2015 Board of County Commissioner's Hearing - 544 Rood Ave - Hearing Room Project # Project Name Planner Status 2015-0066 RZ Clifton Christian Church Rezone Randy OK 2015-0069 RZ Robison Rezone Christie OK

July 28, 2015 Board of County Commissioner's Hearing - 544 Rood Ave - Hearing Room Project # Project Name Planner Status 2015-0092 CUP Hickman's Egg Farm Conditional Use permit Jeff OK

August 11, 2015 Board of County Commissioner's Hearing - 544 Rood Ave - Hearing Room Project # Project Name Planner Status 2015-0082 RZ Central High School Rezone Christie OK 2015-0083 CUP Central High Cell Tower Condtional Use Permit Christie OK 2015-0094 CUP D & M Meats Conditional Use Permit Christie OK

2 Index/ Location Map

3 INDEX MESA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LAND USE HEARING JUNE 23, 2015

HEARING ITEM(S):

1. 2015-0016 CUP BATES MANUFACTURING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Pg 7

2. 2015-0056 VA GRADY DRIVE VACATION OF RIGHT OF WAY Pg 49

3. 2015-0061 VA BURBANK STREET &7 ALLEY VACATION OF RIGHT OF WAY Pg 76

4. 2015-0078 CPA DOUBLE CREEK CONCEPT PLAN APPEAL Pg 108

4 Location Map

2

3 4 1 ! ! ! !

BoCC Hearing Items June 23, 2015

5 4

10 5 0 10 20 30 Miles PROJECT REVIEW

6 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 REPORT May, 11 2015 Revised June 16, 2015

I. PROJECT: 2015-0016 CUP BATES MANUFACTURING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Property Owner(s): Albert and Sondra Bates Location: 1875 M Road (SW corner of the intersection of M Road and 19 Road) Parcel #: 2697-041-00-786 Zoning: AFT Planner: Randy Price, Senior Planner Request: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a welding shop in the AFT zone Pursuant to Mesa County Land Development Code Table 5.1 under the Industrial- Indoor operations and Storage. Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions and adoption of the resolution.

Location and Zoning Map

7 II. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING:

This site is zoned AFTThe predominant land uses in the vicinity are agricultural and an increasing amount of low density residential development. It is located approximately 4200 feet north of the town limits of Fruita. Within one half mile of the proposed CUP are properties zoned URR. The future land use is Rural Estate 3. This parcel is 5 acres in size and is surrounded by other properties approximately also 5 acres in size. In addition to residential uses, agriculture is a a principle use of the surrounding properties. Adjacent to this property to the north is a 51 acre parcel in cultivation. The parcel to the east across 19 Road is a 97 acre parcel in cultivation and cattle ranching. The northern 40% of the CUP parcel is used for the residence and the welding business; the southern 60% is in cultivation. The operator/applicant is a resident on this property.

III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Mr. Bates the operator, has been operating the welding shop at this location for the past several years and wishes to ‘legitimize’ his business with an approved Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Bates operates the welding shop on his property and works on oil and gas equipment. Currently there are two employees and he has had another employee in the past. Mr. Bates operates a welding shop in a 80ft x 70ft metal building located to the east of his residence. All welding occurs within the building and all equipment is stored within the building. This operation repairs and modifies oil and gas equipment. This equipment delivered by large semi tractor trailers and flatbed trucks. The last project at this operation consisted of work on one piece of equipment for over a year. Mr. Bates does not expect any deliveries to occur more frequently than every three months. This operation has received an approval for a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the access to M Road. The access is sufficient to allow large trucks to turn into and out of the driveway. Mr. Bates said that the noise generated in the shop isn’t any louder than agricultural machinery that operate in the surrounding fields.

8

9 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 extent practical and reclamation of the site will be adequate for appropriate future uses of the site where applicable.

The proposed use at this location is different from other uses in the surrounding area. However, activity will be occurring indoors in the shop. The exterior is a metal building is not any different than other metal buildings used in agriculture production. All storage of equipment and machinery is indoors. Truck traffic for delivery of materials is and will remain infrequent and may be 5 deliveries and pick ups a year. Signage, if used at all would be limited to roughly 8 sq. ft and be unlit.

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.

This project is located in a rural area where there is adequate utility infrastructure in place to serve the needs of the proposed use. The restrooms would be served by an OSWT with leach field. Very little additional traffic will be generated by this use if approved. The existing roadway is adequate to serve the amount and type of traffic associated with the proposed use. The existing shop and recent expansion retain the character and scale of agricultural outbuildings and are set back off the road behind the horse corrals. There is a 6 foot high opaque fence to provide additional screening No additional buffering or screening is deemed necessary.

No objection to the use was expressed by the Lower Valley Fire Protection District.

This criterion has been met..

C. Access will be provided as necessary to prevent traffic hazards and to minimize traffic congestion in public streets and alleys. While there are no new access points proposed for this land use application, the existing access point/driveway conforms to current Mesa County Road Access standards. This includes paved a apron and culverts if needed. A NOI driveway permit has been issue for this access.

This criterion is has been met.

D. Adequate assurances of on-going maintenance have been provided.

10

This proposed use is entirely contained indoors except for occasional loading and unloading of materials. Otherwise, there is no outside maintenance with the proposed operation.

This criterion can be met

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.

The project is an expansion of an existing building. As an indoor use there is no impact on the environment. Maximum number of employees will be held to 4. Light will be full cutoff to avoid light trespass onto other properties. The building will be limited to current size of 80’x70’.

This criterion can be met.

F. There is a need for the use on a community wide basis.

This proposal provides for a non-polluting industrial employment activity for the owner/resident and his son-in-law and supports the oil and gas industry in western Colorado without adversely impacting surrounding neighbors.

This criterion can be met.

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 proposal demonstrates substantial compliance or the ability to comply with all applicable standards, provisions, and purposes of the Code.

This criterion can be met.

B. is consistent with review agency comments;

This proposal appears to comply or has the ability to comply with all review agency comments received.

This criterion can be met if all required permits are obtained and all review agency comments are met.

C. is consistent with applicable intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) between the County and other entities.

11 This site is subject to MCA 83-26 which coordinates the development review between the City of Fruita and Mesa County. The City of Fruita has been forwarded this application for comment. No conflicts with intergovernmental agreements have been identified.

This criterion has been met.

V. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS:

All review comments received are a part of the hearing packet and the file.

VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS:

As of the date of this review, no public comments have been received for this application.

VII. PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS:

The Mesa County Department of Planning and Economic Development recommends approval with conditions and adoption of the resolution for this request subject to the following conditions: (Note: additions in red and deletions with strike out, are changes recommended by the MCPC during the hearing on May 21)

1. All review agency comments shall be addressed that are not in conflict with the following conditions of approval. 2. Signage if provided shall not exceed 8 square feet, and not be internally lit. 3. Hours of operation shall be 7:00- 7:00 five days a week. 4. Outdoor lighting must use full cut off fixtures to limit stray light from leaving the property. 5. The operation will be limited to four employees. At least one of the employees must reside at the residence. 6. The applicant, owner, and operator shall adhere to the noise limit requirements of Colorado Revised Statutes Section 25-12-103. In the event a noise complaint is received by Mesa County, the operator shall, at his or her own expense, conduct sound testing as necessary to demonstrate compliance with the above referenced Statutes. 7. All equipment and welding activities must be indoors. 8. No outdoor storage related to the operation of the business. of industrial equipment. 9. The applicant must obtain all required building permits necessary for construction. 10. The applicant shall comply with the approved site plan submitted with the CUP. 11. Termination of the permit after five years with the applicant able to reapply for a renewed CUP. 12. Annual review of permit conditions for compliance by Mesa County staff. 13. Submittal of a detailed site plan showing equipment locations and functions.

12 Basis for recommendation:

This request has demonstrated compliance or the ability to comply with Section 3.8.7.A-F (Conditional Use Approval Criteria) and Section 3.1.17.A-C (General Approval Criteria) of the Mesa County Land Development Code (2000, as amended).

Approval Criteria Summary

Conditional Use Permit Criteria Condition#

3.8.7.A The proposed use is not significantly different Can be met 3,4,5,6,7,8,10 &13 from adjacent uses 3.8.7.B Facilities and services are available Has been met 3.8.7.C Access is provided to prevent traffic hazards and minimize traffic congestion Has been met 3.8.7.D Adequate assurances of on-going maintenance are provided Can be met 1,4,8,7,9,12, 13, 11, 12&13 3.8.7.E Significant adverse impacts on the natural environment have been mitigated to the extent practical Can be met 4,6

3.8.7.F A need for the use on a community-wide basis has been established Has been met

General Approval Criteria:

3.1.17. A compliance with Code Can be Met 1,2, 3,4,6,7,8,9,10, 11,12&13 3.1.17. B consistency with review agency comments Can Be Met 1 3.1.17. C consistency with IGAs Has been met

VIII. MCPC Recommendation: approval on a 7 to 0 vote on May21, 2015 IX. BoCC Decision (June 23, 2015)

13 HEARING NOTICE

14 Bates Manufacturing Parcel/Notification Map 2015-0016 CUP 05/04/2015

Notification Buffer

AFT

LegendLegend

2697-041-00-786 2500 ft buffer Parcels " 15

0.3 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 Miles 2015-0016 Bates Manufacturing CUP Notification Table

PARCEL_NUM OWNER MAILING CITY ST ZIP 2697-032-00-028 ALLEN GRADY P 1925 M RD FRUITA CO 81521 2697-042-05-001 AZCARRAGA DOMINGO 1255 18 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9686 2697-041-09-002 BATES ALBERT R 1875 M RD FRUITA CO 81521 2697-041-00-767 BLASDEL JIM 1268 18 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9604 2697-041-04-001 BONAR BRIAN 2428 OAK CANYON PL ESCONDIDO CA 92025-6743 2697-044-12-002 BOTTOM STEVEN L TRUST 202 NORTH AVE UNIT 315GRAND JUNCTION CO 81501 2697-042-01-002 BRADLEY DOYLE S 1283 18 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9686 2695-333-00-268 CARPENTER JIM D 1301 18 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9612 2697-044-00-764 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LDSPO BOX 511196 SALT LAKE CITY UT 841511196 2695-343-00-597 COPELAND MITCHELL T 1334 19 RD FRUITA CO 81521 2695-343-00-337 CROOKS DEBORAH KAY 1330 19 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9690 2697-041-03-003 DIXON DANNY W 1875 HIGH PT FRUITA CO 81521-9078 2697-042-05-002 ESTATE OF STEVEN CALHOON 1267 18 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9686 2697-041-03-002 FLEWELLING WANDA L 1275 19 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9689 2697-041-00-343 GEIGER JUSTIN B 1297 19 RD FRUITA CO 81521 2697-041-03-004 HAMAKER ANDREW K 1871 HIGH PT FRUITA CO 81521-9078 2695-343-00-573 HANSEN DAVID J 1908 M RD FRUITA CO 81521-9624 2697-041-04-003 HOLLISTER STEVEN L 1282 18 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521 2695-334-24-001 JAEGER RANDY G PO BOX 985 SILT CO 81652 2695-334-00-332 KAMPLAIN THOMAS E 1346 18 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9687 2695-343-00-592 KREY HELEN 2015 OVERLOOK DR GRAND JUNCTION CO 81505-7041 2695-343-00-591 KREY MAX A 2015 OVERLOOK DR GRAND JUNCTION CO 81505-7041 2697-032-00-029 LEANY ARVAN RODNEY 824 19 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9405 2697-042-01-001 LEDBETTER JAMES M 1291 18 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9686 2697-041-04-002 MADDUX DWIGHT L SR 1290 18 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521 2697-041-00-771 MALLORY GLENN F 739 GOLFMORE DR GRAND JUNCTION CO 81506 2697-041-03-008 MCCLELLAND DAVID 1880 HIGH PT FRUITA CO 81521-9078 2697-041-00-780 MCCURRY MATTHEW W 1287 19 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9689 2697-041-03-005 METTLER WAYNE H 1872 HIGH POINT CT FRUITA CO 81521-9078 2695-334-03-002 MOON DAVID J 1358 18 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9687 2695-334-03-001 MOON JOHN W TRUSTEE 1360 18 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9687 2697-041-03-009 ORTH JERRY L 1261 19 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9689 2695-333-23-003 REAL WEALTH CREATIONS-CO LLC1381 WARNER AVE STE TUSTINC CA 92780-6441 2695-334-00-396 REID ERSEL E 1338 18 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9687 2695-343-00-574 SCHLEPER GREG C 1920 M RD FRUITA CO 815219624 2695-343-00-459 SCHMALZ DAVID D 1930 M RD FRUITA CO 81521-9624 2695-334-00-381 SEAL ROBERT S 1326 18 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9687 2695-333-20-002 SHANDONY MICHAEL J 1848 M RD FRUITA CO 815219635 2697-033-00-927 STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE743 HORIZON CT GRAND JUNCTION CO 81506 2697-041-04-004 STIEG BRAD 1276 18 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9604 2697-044-00-778 THEARIN DIANNA J PO BOX 563 FRUITA CO 81521-0563 2697-033-00-016 TRI-STATE GENERATION & TRANSMISSION12076 GRANT ASSOC ST THORNTON CO 80241-3102 2695-334-00-437 TROYER GARY E 1324 18 1/2 ROAD FRUITA CO 81521 2695-343-00-596 TRUJILLO JEFFERY J 1338 19 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9690 2695-333-21-002 TUFFIN SUZANNA M 1323 18 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521 2695-334-00-415 WARD DAVID A 1331 19 RD FRUITA CO 81521

Page 1 of 2 16 2015-0016 Bates Manufacturing CUP Notification Table

2695-333-00-269 WIMBERLY FAMILY TRUST 1315 18 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9612

Page 2 of 2 17 MCPC MINUTES

18 MESA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, May 21, 2015 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES

Chairman Moreng called to order a scheduled hearing of the Mesa County Planning Commission at 6 PM. Chairman Moreng led the Pledge of Allegiance. The hearing was held in the Public Hearing Room, Mesa County Administration Building at 544 Rood Avenue, Grand Junction, Colorado.

In attendance representing the Mesa County Planning Commission, were: Joe Moreng, Phillip Jones, Christi Flynn, Rusty Price, David Hartmann, George Skiff, Ron Wriston. Bill Somerville and Robert Erbish were present in the audience.

In attendance, representing the Mesa County Planning Division, were: Linda Dannenberger and Randy Price. Kathy Kinsey was present to record the minutes.

There were seventeen (17) citizens present throughout the hearing.

Approval of Minutes 4-16-15 Motion: Commissioner Jones moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Second: Commissioner Flynn Motion Approved 7-0

Continued Items None

Consent Items Chairman Moreng explained the consent agenda and asked for a motion to approve or if anyone from the Planning Commission, staff or the audience had any concerns or questions about any of the consent agenda Items.

Ms. Linda Dannenberger, Planning Division Director, stated that project 2015-0016 CUP Bates Manufacturing needed to be taken off consent and placed on the hearing portion of the agenda for individual consideration.

1. 2015-0016 CUP BATES MANUFACTURING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Property Owner(s): Albert and Sondra Bates Location: 1875 M Road (SW corner of the intersection of M Road and 19 Road) Zoning: AFT Planner: Randy Price, (970)244-1759, [email protected] Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a welding shop in the AFT zone. Pursuant to Mesa County Land Development Code Table 5.1 under Industrial, Indoor Operations and Storage. Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions Board of County Commissioners Hearing Date: 6-23-15

19 Motion: Commissioner Flynn moved to remove project 2015-0016 CUP Bates Manufacturing from the consent agenda and place it on the hearing agenda. Second: Commissioner Wriston Motion Approval 7-0

Hearing Items

1. 2015-0016 CUP BATES MANUFACTURING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Property Owner(s): Albert and Sondra Bates Location: 1875 M Road (SW corner of the intersection of M Road and 19 Road) Zoning: AFT Planner: Randy Price, (970)244-1759, [email protected] Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a welding shop in the AFT zone. Pursuant to Mesa County Land Development Code Table 5.1 under Industrial, Indoor Operations and Storage. Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions Board of County Commissioners Hearing Date: 6-23-15

Staff Presentation Randy Price entered into the record The Mesa County Land Development Code, The Mesa County Master Plan, the PowerPoint Presentation which is labeled as Exhibit A and the project file. Mr. Price stated the location and zoning of the property and continued to explain what the applicant is requesting. He then showed several photos of the property and pointed out the location on a map. Mr. Price explained that the shop has been added onto in the last couple of years and is now double the size of what it was and it is now 80 feet x 70 feet. Mr. Price continued to explain that the owner of the property is also the operator of the business and stated that the Future Land Use is Rural Estate 3.

Mr. Price stated that there were no complaints received regarding this property. He explained that the applicant remanufactures oil and gas equipment in the enclosed shop located on the property and he has 2 fulltime employees and one part-time employee working at the location. Mr. Price stated that all welding activity and storage of equipment is located indoors. He referenced Table 5.1 in the Land Development Code listed under Industrial, Indoor Operations and Storage and also under Manufacturing and Processing.

Mr. Price showed additional photos including the outside of the property and pointed out the building where the shop is. He pointed out on a map that the closest residence is 138 feet from the corner of the building to the corner of the building. He stated that there is one entryway for the residence and one entryway for the shop in the back so that large trucks can access the area with equipment. Mr. Price then explained the approval criteria and stated that there is a 6 foot privacy fence around the property to help keep the noise to a minimum for neighbors. Mr. Price then explained the approval criteria from Section 3.8.7 of the Land Development Code and listed the conditions for the approval of this request. He also stated that the hours of operation for the business will

20 be 5 days a week from 7 AM to 7 PM.

Questions Commissioner Wriston asked why they are restricting the hours of business to 5 days per week with 2 employees and wanted to know if this was a seasonal business and if they got busier, can they expand to fit their needs. Mr. Price stated that Mr. Bates can request an amendment to the CUP if there were no issues regarding compliance and the neighbors didn’t object to anything. He explained that the hours of operation were put in place to minimize the impact on the neighbors during the evening hours and 5 days a week would keep this to the standard business week. He stated that it would be possible to expand this if the need arose due to a larger workload for the operation.

Chair Moreng inquired about the storage of industrial equipment like raw materials, steel racks, and fluids asking if anything was stored outside the building. M. Price stated that it is a requirement of this portion of the Code that states all storage and activities must be stored or done indoors.

Applicant/Representative Presentation Albert Bates Mr. Bates stated that he is just trying to run a business and provide for his family. He said he does have a 300 gallon outdoor tank on his property that is used to fuel his tractor and other farm equipment. Mr. Bates explained that when he was using equipment in the past it upset some of the neighbors so he put up the privacy fence and built the shop to run the equipment indoors. He explained the he is supplying 4 different families with jobs and would like to keep the business going as long as possible.

Questions Commissioner Wriston asked if the fence goes all the way around all of the property therefore protecting all of the neighbors. Mr. Bates stated that it is 50 feet off the highway and in that area it had to be 6 feet tall but it’s raised up to an 8 foot fence around the back of the shop and along the North side of the property. The purpose of this is to help with the noise and so the neighbors didn’t have to look at the sight. Mr. Bates stated that he is willing, if necessary, to put up straw bales to also minimize the noise. Chair Moreng asked what equipment was inside of the shop. Mr. Bates explained that he has a crane outside that can pick up 18,000 pounds to lift heavy equipment off of trucks and he has a compressor. He stated that indoors he has a solvent tub to clean parts, a bead blaster, a mill, a drill press, 5 welding machines, and a 2-ton overhead crane. Chair Moreng asked for additional explanation about his employees. Mr. Bates explained that himself, his son, his son-in-law and a temporary, part-time employee that comes in when the work load allows it work there. That makes it 2 fulltime employees plus Mr. Bates as an additional fulltime employee. Mr. Price explained that the record reflects a limit of 4 employees maximum and as one of the conditions of approval.

Public Comments Matt McCurry Mr. McCurry stated that he filed a complaint with Mesa County twice over the last 2

21 years about the outside noise, sand blasting and some over spray that carried over to his vehicles. He stated that he is concerned about having the propane and fuel tankers inside the shop and worried about the potential hazard of something blowing up.

Commissioner Flynn asked about there being no complaints in regards to this project and why this was coming out now. Mr. Price stated that until today he had only received 2 phones calls and had one visitor inquiring about the project but they were not complaints they were concerned about the expansion of business and nothing was said about the noise. Mr. Price said he made adjustments to the conditions of approval in regards to the number of employees. He also explained that all activities need to be done inside the building. An inquiry was made as to whether or not there was a neighborhood meeting held in regards to this project and the answer was no.

Steve Hollister, Serena Stieg, Dwight Maddux, Dan Dixon, Corey Greenhow spoke for himself and Brian Bonar, and Diana Seaco spoke against the conditional use permit for some of the following reasons:

- Zoning is for agriculture not an industrial business in the neighborhood. Families are raising poultry, goats, cows, horses and sheep which is what the zoning allows for. - A letter of objection was read regarding having the rules skirted by operating the business before obtaining the proper County approvals - Neighbors don’t want to see this business expand if it’s allowed to remain - Property values are affected by this business being in the neighborhood - The effect of chemicals from the business and what they could do to livestock - There is concern about the disposal of chemicals on the property. If something spilled or leaked it would contaminate the ground where people are raising livestock & 4-H animals. - An attorney was hired to look at this and believes everything Mr. Bates is doing is illegal. The information from the attorney was presented to the Commissioners. - Concern was expressed about the oil fields getting busy in the future and this business expanding and becoming more of an issue for the neighbors.

Dwight Maddux Mr. Price handed out an email that was received today from Mr. Maddux’s attorney Dan Wilson. This email was labeled as Exhibit 1.

A BREAK WAS TAKEN AT 6:45 PM TO READ THE NEWLY PRESENTED EXHIBIT. BACK ON THE RECORD AT 6:50 PM

Linda Dannenberger stated that the County Attorney responded to Mr. Wilson’s email late today and Patrick Coleman informed Linda that he supports the staff’s interpretation of how this use would be allowed in the AFT zone. Ms. Dannenberger explained that Mr. Coleman is only able to give advice on matters and she is explaining what stand he took. Mr. Price referred to Table 5.1 under the Industrial Use Section 12.6 it lists indoor operations and storage and it lists all of the zones that are allowed use or conditional use or not allowed at all. He explained that what Mr. Bates is doing is allowed as a

22 conditional use permit.

Further discussion took place regarding facts stated in the Code about indoor versus outdoor, noise limits, and putting a spray booth inside the building. Ms. Dannenberger explained more about allowed uses and conditional uses.

Eli Fresquez Mr. Fresquez explained that he assisted Mr. Bates in getting his business up and running and to abide by the Code and that is what they did. He mentioned that Mr. Bates went to the extra expense to build the big fence to help minimize the impact on the neighbors. Mr. Fresquez stated that they hired sewer, traffic, soil, and building engineers to make sure everything was done right and they spoke to various people about the noise. He said he also took a noise measuring machine to the property and at that time someone was running farm equipment and he could not hear anything offensive coming from Mr. Bates’ shop.

Applicant/Representative Rebuttal Albert Bates Mr. Bates stated that the only liquid he has is a 5 gallon solvent tank used to wash parts and this is located inside the shop. He explained that the painting issue that was discussed earlier was done before he had shop built and he doesn’t understand how overspray from paint can travel through the air for 600 feet and get on a car. He said if painting is done in the future it will be done indoors. Mr. Bates feels that his business is good for the community where kids could learn a trade.

Questions Commissioner Price asked if Mr. Bates does sand blasting. Mr. Bates explained that what he has is called black magic and it’s EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) approved and this is done in a contained area that is on a 30 x 60 cement pad with a catch pan, this is outside but he would be willing to move this into the building if necessary. Mr. Bates stated that he received his Certificate of Occupancy approximately 9 months ago and the buildings have been inspected and are well built.

Planning Commission Discussion & Vote Commissioner Flynn stated that she understands the complaints by the neighbors but believes there is a need for welders in this valley. She also supports having a business on ones property because the expense to start a business would be too expensive.

Commissioner Price asked if there could be a sunset provision put on this conditional use permit to allow for another review and check on the status of the business. Linda Dannenberger stated that terms could be put on this CUP because this use does not establish the primary value of the property.

Further discussion took place regarding comments received from both sides and that they are in favor of the business as is but don’t think expansion in the future is a good idea. They also talked about requiring a site plan of the building showing the complete plan, location of all equipment and other items having to do with the operation and

23 having this as a condition of the approval which would be an administrative review. Ms. Dannenberger stated that reviews are typically done annually which requires an inspection where they consider complaints and to make sure the operator is in compliance or there could be a termination date put in place too. Commissioner Price recommends a 5 year termination with an annual review on the CUP and at that time Mr. Bates can reapply.

It was decided that they would list out each change to any conditions and any new conditions and vote on each one. This took place as follows:

#11 Termination of the permit after five years with the applicant able to reapply for a renewed CUP. Motion: Commissioner Price moved to add Condition #11 as stated above. Second: Commissioner Wriston Motion Approved: 7-0

#8 No outdoor storage related to the operation of the business. Motion: Chair Moreng moved to modify Condition #8 as stated above. Second: Commissioner Jones Motion Approved: 7-0

#12 Annual review of permit conditions for compliance by Mesa County staff. Motion: Commissioner Price moved to add Condition #12 as stated above. Second: Chair Moreng Motion Approved: 7-0

#13 Submittal of a detailed site plan showing equipment locations and functions. Motion: Chair Moreng moved to add Condition #13 as stated above. Second: Commissioner Jones Motion Approved: 7-0

Motion: Commissioner Jones made a motion that 2015-0016 CUP Bates Manufacturing Conditional Use Permit be approved subject to the recommendations of staff and those made by the commissioners today. Second: Commissioner Flynn Motion Approved: 7-0

Motion to adjourn: Commissioner Hartmann Motion Approved: 7-0

Hearing adjourned at 7:35 PM

Respectfully Submitted,

24 ______Chip Page, Secretary

25 REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS

26 27

Review Agency Comments -Bates

Date User Note EditDeletePublic

No comments. 4/7/2015 4:43:33 PM mcdeveng

- MC Development Engineering

Uploaded Bates Manufacturing & Welding Shop, 1875 M Road - TIF Memo.pdf A 3/25/2015 1:31:11 PM Daniel.Sundstrom

Transportation Impact Fee has been determined for this use.

3/23/2015 3:48:00 PM Nancy.Carter The Assessor's Office has no comments.

• No objections. 3/20/2015 4:16:46 PM jdaugher • If you have any questions concerning any

of this, please feel free to contact Ute Water.

Up loaded Bates NOI - Request for Design Exception 12-30-14.pdf to file 3/20/2015 8:13:52 AM Daniel.Sundstrom

NOI was approved based on this Design Exception

CCI Engineering provided documentation that the existing ISDS/OWTS is sufficiently sized for the proposed new shop addition. If 3/19/2015 12:53:56 PM robin.carns

additional employees are planned in the future, an additional analysis will be required.

Need to know distance from new building to corrals.In addition to the complying with the 3/19/2015 12:31:57 PM fmfruita IBC the welding shop needs to comply with

the requirements of Chapter 35 of the Fire Code

It appears all permits are in place. No 3/19/2015 7:38:11 AM Darrell.Bay

objections Additional Information added to file on 3/17/2015 10:24:39 AMRandy.Price March 16 from a telephone call to applicant at 712-1445.

28

Mr. Bates owns Bates Manufacturing a company that refurbishes oil and gas field equipment in a shop located at 1875 M Road. The business is located on the same parcel that Mr. Bates lives on. This company overalls oil and gas equipment to bring it up to current regulatory standards. There may be up to five trucks per year maximum, delivering and picking up equipment that has been worked on. To help mitigate sound and visual impact the applicant has constructed and six foot high fence. Mr. Bates applied for a building permit to increase the building area by 40' x 70' to a final size 80' x 70'. All welding work will be done inside the buildings by Mr. Bates, his son, his son-in-law and sometimes a part-time employee. He said the noise produced by working on equipment is not any louder than the agricultural equipment operating in the adjacent fields. The equipment that they work on comes from areas as far away as Vernal, Utah and Farmington, New Mexico. Sometimes the projects will take 1000 man hours to complete The last job took over a year to complete. Mr. Bates said they would probably average one semi tractor-trailer visit every four months. For the NOI, the applicant demonstrated that there was a sufficient turning area for trucks delivering and picking up refurbished equipment. Mr. Bates's email is [email protected].

The applicant has not updated the application with the required Development 3/2/2015 5:03:04 PM Randy.Price Application form with contact information

and signatures of representative and landowner.

29

The Narrative will require additional information such as.

* The name of the company that will run the welding shop. * what does the shop weld? Is it large equipment or smaller parts. * How many off-site employees? * how many customers will visit per day? * Will material be delivered in large trucks? and how many trucks? Hours? * Outdoor storage? * What kind of welding?

30 PUBLIC COMMENTS

31


32 33 34 APPLICANT INFORMATION

35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 RESOLUTION

43

RESOLUTION NO. ______Planning Department No. 2015-0016

APPROVAL OF BATES BATES MANUFACTURING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

WHEREAS, Eli Fresquez, on behalf of the property owners, Albert R. and Sondra Bates requested approval for a Conditional Use Permit for a welding shop located at 1875 M Road in the AFT zone Pursuant to Mesa County Land Development Code Table 5.1 under the Industrial- Indoor operations and Storage as described on attached Exhibit "A", Legal Description; and

WHEREAS, the attached Exhibit “B” is the site plan for the proposed use; and

WHEREAS, the staff recommendation was contained in a staff report dated May 11, 2015 and amended June 16, 2015; and

WHEREAS, the Mesa County Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions at their May 26, 2015, public hearing; and

WHEREAS, the public hearing before the Mesa County Board of County Commissioners was held on June 23, 2015.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF MESA FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

THAT public notice requirements of Section 3.1.8 of the Mesa County Land Development Code (2000, as amended) have been met; and

THAT the Bates Manufacturing welding shop located at 1875 M Road near Fruita, can meet (with compliance with conditions) the applicable Approval Criteria for a Conditional Use Permit (Section 3.8.7), the General Approval Criteria (Section 3.1.17) of the Mesa County Land Development Code (2000, as amended) including consistency with intergovernmental agreements; and

THAT this request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate the Bates Manufacturing welding shop is in accordance with the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Mesa County.

Page 1 of 4

44 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN THE COUNTY OF MESA, STATE OF COLORADO:

THAT the Bates Manufacturing welding shop Conditional Use Permit is approved with the following conditions:

1. All review agency comments shall be addressed that are not in conflict with the following conditions of approval. 2. Signage if provided shall not exceed 8 square feet, and not be internally lit. 3. Hours of operation shall be 7:00- 7:00 five days a week. 4. Outdoor lighting must use full cut off fixtures to limit stray light from leaving the property. 5. The operation will be limited to four employees. At least one of the employees must reside at the residence. 6. The applicant, owner, and operator shall adhere to the noise limit requirements of Colorado Revised Statutes Section 25-12-103. In the event a noise complaint is received by Mesa County, the operator shall, at his or her own expense, conduct sound testing as necessary to demonstrate compliance with the above referenced Statutes. 7. All equipment and welding activities must be indoors. 8. No outdoor storage related to the operation of the business. 9. The applicant must obtain all required building permits necessary for construction. 10. The applicant shall comply with the approved site plan submitted with the CUP. 11. Termination of the permit after five years with the applicant able to reapply for a renewed CUP. 12. Annual review of permit conditions for compliance by Mesa County staff. 13. Submittal of a detailed site plan showing equipment locations and functions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF JUNE, 2015.

______Rose Pugliese, Chair Board of Mesa County Commissioners

ATTEST:

______Sheila Reiner Clerk and Recorder

Page 2 of 4

45

Exhibit A: Legal Description

PARCEL 1 BATES SIMPLE LAND DIVISION SEC 4 1N 2W - 5.00AC

Page 3 of 4

46 Exhibit B: Site Plan

Page 4 of 4

47 PROJECT REVIEW

48 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 June 5, 2015 Revised June 15, 2015

I. 2015-0056 GRADY DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION

Property Owner(s): Amy & David Hibberd Representative(s): Amy Hibberd Location: 68129 Vega Vista, Collbran, CO. 81624 (Grady Drive and Vega Vista Drive) Parcel #: 2661-332-03-001 Zoning: AFT Planner: Jeff Hofman, 970.254.4152, [email protected] Request: To vacate a section of Grady Drive in the Vega Park Subdivision. The area requested to be vacated is the northeastern end of Grady Drive and was not developed as a road in this area. The total amount of the request consists of 6,060 square feet.

Recommendation: Approval

Location and Zoning Map:

Page 1 of 7

49

II. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Zoning within a 5,280-foot area:  Agricultural, Forestry, Transitional (AFT)

Land Uses within a 5,280-foot area:  Residential  Recreational  Agricultural  Natural Gas Production

Applicable Area Plans  Rural Planning Area o Future Land Use for these parcels is Rural/Agricultural 35+ (R/A 35+)

III. PROJECT HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION:

The applicants are requesting the vacation of an un-built portion of Grady Drive in the Vega Park Subdivision. This subdivision was created in 1961and is located north of the Vega Reservoir approximately ten miles east of the Town of Collbran. The last 121 feet of the Grady Drive right-of-way is the subject of the vacation request.

Mesa County does not maintain the roads in the Vega Park Subdivision. Grady Drive is improved with an unpaved surface between 64 6/10 Road on the south and Vega Vista Drive on the north. The Grady Drive right-of-way north of Vega Vista Drive was never improved. The topography subject to the vacation request drops toward Ground Hog Gulch and makes road development difficult. The right-of-way ends along the northwest corner of Lot 1 of the Red Tail Ranch Subdivision. This subdivision was a replat of Lot 2, Block 8 of the Vega Park Subdivision plus additional un-platted property.

If vacated, the subject portion of rights of way would return to the adjacent property owners of the land that was originally part of the Vega Park Subdivision: the Hibberds. The property on the other side of the right-of-way is owned by Piceance Energy and is an 894 acre parcel that was never part of the Vega Park Subdivision. Piceance Energy accesses their property from Highway 330 E. via a series of natural gas field access roads including Ground Hog Gulch Road. This parcel could potentially be accessed through other roads in the Vega Park Subdivision including Toboggan Court and Lariat Loop.

The Hibberds own Lot 1 of the Red Tail Ranch Subdivision and the Hibberd Living Trust owns Lot 2 of this subdivision. Lot 1 is vacant and Lot 2 of the Red Tail Ranch Subdivision contains a home. Initial discussions with the Hibberds focused on adjusting the property lines between the two lots in the Red Tail Ranch Subdivision. Vacation of this right-of-way would allow them to incorporate this property into any future property line adjustment re-plat.

Page 2 of 7

50

Red Tail Ranch Subdivision

Grady Drive Right-of-Way

Page 3 of 7

51 Proposed Rights Of Way Vacation:

Page 4 of 7

52 Aerial Photo

IV. COMPLIANCE WITH MESA COUNTY LAND USE POLICIES AND MESA COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

Section 3.10 Vacation of Rights-of-Way and Renaming of Streets The applicable criteria of Section 3.10 apply. This Code Section sets forth the following criteria for evaluating right-of-way vacation requests.

Section 3.10.6.A the requested vacation will not:

(1) Create any landlocked parcels; This application will not create any landlocked parcels or lots. The Hibberds currently access their properties off Vega Park Drive and then via two recorded access easements (Book 1913, Page 997 & Book 2175, Page 677) and an easement placed on the Red Tail Ranch Subdivision plat (Book 4763, Page 867) . The vacation request does not change this access. The Grady Drive right-of-way would still extend to Lot 1 of the Red Tail Ranch Subdivision. This criterion has been met.

(2) Negatively impact adjacent parcels; This vacation will not impact adjacent properties. All properties adjacent to this rights-of-way have frontage on roads or have access easements. This criterion has been met.

(3) Restrict access to any parcel so that access is unreasonable or economically prohibitive; This vacation of right of way will not restrict access to any of the adjacent properties. This right-of-way is not used for access to any residences. This criterion has been met.

Page 5 of 7

53

(4) Reduce the quality of public service to any parcel of land; No comments were received from any reviewing agency that would indicate there would be a reduction in the quality of public service if this request were approved. This criterion has been met.

(5) Be inconsistent with any adopted transportation plan, including the Grand Junction/Mesa County MPO Transportation Plan; The right of way proposed to be vacated is not on the Grand Valley Circulation Plan and a vacation will not be inconsistent with the plan. This criterion has been met.

(6) Affect the historic movement of livestock; This right-of-way has no known historic movement of livestock associated with it. This criterion has been met.

(7) Create a circuitous alternate route for area residents or other members of the public; The right-of-way proposed to be vacated does not have a constructed road. Access easements roads provide access for area residents, and these access points will not change. This criterion has been met.

(8) Negatively affect utility access or utility distribution networks; or No utility companies have provided comments that this vacation will cause problems with utilities in the right of way. Grand Valley Power does not have power lines in the right of way proposed to be vacated. This criterion has been met.

(9) Eliminate public access to public lands. This right of way is not located adjacent to public lands and does not provide public access for any public land in the area. No public land is located adjacent to this vacation area. This criterion has been met.

Section 3.1.17 General Approval Criteria must also be considered for Vacation of Right-of- Way requests:

A. Complies with all applicable standards, provisions, and purposes of this Land Development Code; It appears that the proposed vacation of this right of way is consistent with all applicable standards, provisions, and purposes of the Land Development Code. This criterion has been.

B. Is consistent with review agency comments; There are no review agency objections to the proposed vacation. This criterion has been met.

C. Is consistent with applicable intergovernmental agreements (IGA) between the County and other entities. These properties are not affected by intergovernmental agreements. This criterion has been met.

V. REVIEW COMMENTS: All review agency comments received are included in the binder for this project.

Page 6 of 7

54

VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There has been two public inquires about this request. Both individual wanted more information regarding the location and scope of the vacation request. Neither party expressed concern or opposition.

VII. PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends approval of the request for a right of way vacation and adoption of the resolution.

The basis for this recommendation is: The petition demonstrates compliance with Section 3.10.6.A (1 - 9) and 3.1.17 (A-C) of the Mesa County Land Development Code (2000, as amended).

Review Summary

Vacation of Rights-of-Way Approval Criteria 3.10.6.A: 1 - no landlocked parcels – has been met 2 - negative impact on adjacent parcels – has been met 3 - restrict access to any parcel – has been met 4 - reduce quality of services – has been met 5 - consistency with transportation plan – has been met 6 – affect the historic movement of livestock – has been met 7 – create a circuitous route for area residents or the public – has been met 8 – negatively affect utility access – has been met 9 – eliminate public access to public lands – has been met

General Approval Criteria 3.1.17: A - compliance with the Land Development Code –has been met B - consistency with review agency comments – has been met C - consistency with IGAs – has been met

VIII. BOCC Action: (6/23/2015):

Page 7 of 7

55 HEARING NOTICE

56 Grady Drive Right of Way Vacation Parcel/Notification Map 2015-0056 06/05/2015

Notification Buffer

LegendLegend

2661-332-03-001

5280 feet buffer Parcels " 57

0.45 0 0.45 0.9 1.35 1.8 Miles PARCEL_NUM OWNER MAILING CITY ST ZIP 2661-321-02-001 15623 VIEW POINT CT LLC 1257 12 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524 2661-332-00-003 AHRING JUSTIN D 15528 GRADY DR COLLBRAN CO 81624 2661-321-07-005 ARTHUR GREER REVOCABLE C4455 YARROW ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 2661-321-14-002 BABCOX NANCY H 2841 1/2 MAVERICK GRAND JUNCTION CO 81503-2193 2661-321-12-021 BARNETT RICK D & SUSAN 540 HOOVER CT GRAND JUNCTION CO 81504-5896 2661-321-09-004 BEAVER WESLEY E 3867 G RD PALISADE CO 81526-9349 2661-332-02-001 BENTZLER HAROLD G JR 6025 COUNTY ROAD SILT CO 81652-9772 2661-321-10-006 BINDER MATTHEW B 2644 CENTRAL DR GRAND JUNCTION CO 81506-8326 2661-321-07-007 BLOUNT CHARLES W REVOC T 881 22 RD GRAND JUNCTION CO 81505 2661-322-03-010 BRAKEY BUD 6383 E GIRARD PL UDENVER CO 802227450 2661-321-04-003 BROWN DANIEL K 700 BEAN RANCH RDWHITEWATER CO 81527 2661-321-13-012 BROWN SALLY LOU 222 VISTA HILLS DR GRAND JUNCTION CO 815032949 2661-322-02-003 BROWN STEVEN L 2731 B RD GRAND JUNCTION CO 81503-2233 2661-321-11-001 BRUCE AMY V 3268 E ROAD, #94 CLIFTON CO 81520 2661-321-09-001 BRUNDRIDGE CRAIG ALAN PO BOX 770282 STEAMBOAT SPRINGCO 80477-0282 2661-321-09-002 BRUNDRIDGE NATHAN E 2289 SHANE CT GRAND JUNCTION CO 81507-1360 2661-321-09-003 BRUNDRIDGE STEVEN NATHA 7712 W 157TH PL ORLAND PARK IL 60462-5054 2661-292-00-204 BRUTON ERIC T PO BOX 316 MESA CO 81643 2661-322-02-009 BUCHHOLZ BRADLEY A 649 PEONY DR GRAND JUNCTION CO 81507-1001 2661-322-02-019 BUMGARDNER EILEEN R 3042 E 1/2 RD GRAND JUNCTION CO 81504-5622 2661-321-08-003 BUMGARDNER MICHAEL C 3498 F RD CLIFTON CO 81520-8433 2719-052-00-918 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 445 W GUNNISON AGRAND JUNCTION CO 815015711 2661-322-03-013 BURLEIGH THOMAS D 3150 LAKESIDE DR AGRAND JUNCTION CO 81506-2838 2661-321-11-004 CAPELLE LEE ARTHUR 3325 S ALCOTT ST SHERIDAN CO 80110 2661-332-01-003 CHANEY C JOAN 8229 BURNLEY RD BALTIMORE MD 21204-1809 2661-321-13-009 CLARK JOE W 339 CANYON RIM CTGRAND JUNCTION CO 81507-3509 2661-321-12-002 CLENDENING TOMMIE LYNNE 860 RAPID CREEK RDPALISADE CO 81526-9401 2661-321-06-003 CRAWFORD DENNIS L 1132 22 1/2 RD GRAND JUNCTION CO 81505-9377 2661-322-01-001 DECHANT GERALD L EST 862 GRAND VISTA WGRAND JUNCTION CO 81506-8688 2661-321-13-010 DESROSIERS CHARLES J 2643 F 1/2 RD GRAND JUNCTION CO 81506-8313 2719-051-00-009 EARLEY LANCE M 420 MESA ST DELTA CO 81416-2536 2661-321-08-001 EQUITY TRUST COMPANY CUS629 BIG STONE LN GRAND JUNCTION CO 81507-8763 2661-321-04-022 FEHLMAN ALBERT W JR 3439 C 1/2 RD PALISADE CO 81526-9546 2661-321-13-016 FLETCHER CHARLES L PO BOX 904 CLIFTON CO 815200904 2661-322-02-010 FORSMAN SHELLY T 3491 G ROAD CLIFTON CO 81520 2661-321-13-007 FOWLER DEANNA 67605 VEGA VISTA DCOLLBRAN CO 81624 2661-321-04-024 FRANCIS MARK JEFFREY 1948 TIMBER FALLS FRUITA CO 815212461 2661-321-13-005 FULMER D & T LIVING TRUST 2634 CHESTNUT DR GRAND JUNCTION CO 81506-8390 2661-322-00-003 FUOCO LAND AND LIVESTOCK 2467 H RD GRAND JUNCTION CO 81505 2661-321-10-012 GATES RAYMOND K TRUST JR3305 LAUREL LN CLIFTON CO 81520-8123 2661-322-03-006 GLANTZ GAYLE J 4688 MOONDUST PLCASTLE ROCK CO 80109-4573 2661-321-09-015 GLASSMAN MAXINE 1845 KENDALL ST APLAKEWOOD CO 80214-1488 2661-321-10-011 GLEN J & DOROTHY A COWEN 3260 N 12TH GRAND JUNCTION CO 81506 2661-322-03-004 GREGG PATRICIA 716 E GRAND AVE FRUITA CO 81521 2719-044-00-024 GUNDERSON JERRY 944 T ROAD MACK CO 81525 2661-321-13-011 HAND ROBERT L 570 MEADOWLARK GRAND JUNCTION CO 81507-2522

58 2661-322-02-013 HENNI JERRY J 3304 DELICIOUS DR CLIFTON CO 81520 2661-332-03-001 HIBBERD AMY 1645 K RD FRUITA CO 81521 2661-332-03-002 HIBBERD LIVING TRUST 1645 K RD FRUITA CO 81521 2661-321-12-024 HOLLETT TIMOTHY E 602 CRIS MAR ST GRAND JUNCTION CO 81504 2661-322-01-006 HUDAK RICHARD E JR 489 TEJON DR GRAND JUNCTION CO 81507-1466 2661-321-04-019 JENSEN PROPERTIES LLLP 3893 HIGHWAY 6 ANPALISADE CO 81526 2661-321-09-007 JOHNSON RODNEY J 755 FLOWER ST GRAND JUNCTION CO 81506-1819 2661-321-10-002 JONES MICHAEL PAUL 1129 ADA AVE IDAHO FALLS ID 83402 2661-321-03-003 JONES ROBERT W 1880 K RD FRUITA CO 81521-9064 2661-321-09-013 JUNAK EDWARD M LIVING TR 826 21 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9315 2661-321-09-017 KECK BETTY L PO BOX 4323 GRAND JUNCTION CO 81502 2661-322-02-014 KEITH & BONNIE SHEPHERD T 2080 BROADWAY GRAND JUNCTION CO 81507-9711 2661-332-01-001 KIMMEL LOIS M 352 ROSEVALE RD GRAND JUNCTION CO 81507-1765 2661-321-10-005 KRUEGER FAMILY TRUST 235 W FALLEN ROCK GRAND JUNCTION CO 81507 2661-322-01-009 KUKULAN RODNEY T 67099 OMAR CT MONTROSE CO 81401-4717 2661-321-04-021 LARSON TERRY L 1433 BOBCAT WAY FRUITA CO 81521-7454 2661-321-11-005 LAUER LYLE G 632 MEADOWOOD SGRAND JUNCTION CO 81504-6941 2661-321-08-002 LEHR JAMES 2907 D 1/2 RD GRAND JUNCTION CO 81504-8609 2661-321-12-003 LEIGH PATRICIA E 6428 S MARION ST CENTENNIAL CO 80121-2551 2661-322-03-011 LGD INVESTMENTS PO BOX 1925 GRAND JUNCTION CO 81502-1925 2661-321-09-016 LITTRELL FOREST W 663 THORNHILL CT GRAND JUNCTION CO 81504-4042 2661-321-09-006 LITTRELL RANDOLPH F 663 THORNHILL CT GRAND JUNCTION CO 81504-4042 2661-321-07-001 LOWE ALVERA I 3621 N BELL RIDGE CGRAND JUNCTION CO 81506-5224 2661-321-07-008 MARTINDALE ROB R 190 DESERT VISTA CTWHITEWATER CO 81527-9304 2661-322-02-018 MARX FAMILY TRUST 1974 I 70 FRONTAGEDE BEQUE CO 81630 2661-321-02-012 MAXWELL SCOTT LEE 15621 VIEW POINT CCOLLBRAN CO 81624 2661-322-01-002 MAYNE KAREN 8690 GRIZZLY WAY EVERGREEN CO 804396274 2661-322-03-002 MEDILL RALPH C II 4055 MAUREEN ST GRAND JUNCTION CO 81506 2661-321-14-001 MOORE GREGORY R 1701 WHITEWATER WHITEWATER CO 81527-9306 2661-321-04-009 MORALES HERMAN 527 GREENBELT CT GRAND JUNCTION CO 81507-1362 2661-322-03-001 NELSON RICHARD H JR 553 RIO BORDE CT GRAND JUNCTION CO 81507-1256 2661-321-02-005 NIELSEN SHELLI JOANN REVOCPO BOX 1258 GYPSUM CO 81637 2661-322-00-001 NOLAND BRYAN L TRUST 3652 1/2 F RD PALISADE CO 81526-9324 2661-322-01-010 NORDINE MICHAEL A 3332 STAR CT GRAND JUNCTION CO 81506-1944 2661-321-02-011 NOWAK CHARLES 3276 SEMILLON CT PALISADE CO 815268200 2661-322-00-004 PAINTER DAVID 190 ROSALIE DR GRAND JUNCTION CO 81503 2661-321-13-017 PARIS PAMELA G 599 ST CROIX LN FRUITA CO 81521 2661-321-13-013 PHILLIP F AGUILERA REVOCABPO BOX 984 GRAND JUNCTION CO 81502-0984 2661-291-00-320 PICEANCE ENERGY LLC 1512 LARIMER ST STDENVER CO 80202 2661-321-07-006 PIETRO KAY D 408 WILLOW RIDGE GRAND JUNCTION CO 81507-2744 2661-273-00-112 RACLOZ ALEXIS 9550 SISSON HWY EDEN NY 14057-9203 2661-321-08-004 REDDING JOSE G 615 SILVERADO DR GRAND JUNCTION CO 815053202 2661-321-02-009 REID JERALD R PO BOX 148 WHITEWATER CO 81527-0148 2661-321-10-007 RILEY KEVIN 420 N VALLEY RD SILT CO 81652-9596 2661-321-01-007 RINDERLE RENTALS LLC 542 33 RD CLIFTON CO 81520-8023 2661-322-01-005 RODRIGUEZ MARIA C 2355 LAKE VIEW AVELOS ANGELES CA 90039-3637 2661-321-04-025 ROME JEFFREY E 595 1/2 REDWING L GRAND JUNCTION CO 81504-4829

59 2661-321-04-023 ROWLAND CHRISTOPHER M 260 MARTIN LN WHITEWATER CO 81527 2661-322-02-002 RUBALCABA JOE M 2834 1/2 C 1/2 RD GRAND JUNCTION CO 81501-4714 2661-322-02-001 RUBALCABA TONI LOUISE 594 MAXWELL DR GRAND JUNCTION CO 81504-7047 2661-321-09-010 RUPP GARY L 3676 G 7/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-8727 2661-322-01-003 RYAN GEORGE THOMAS 730 PINYON CT FRUITA CO 81521-6412 2661-321-13-004 SAXON KERRY A 243 N OLIVE ST ORANGE CA 92866-1329 2661-331-00-216 SHEAR FAMILY PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 426 COLLBRAN CO 81624-0426 2661-321-02-006 SIMMS LES O 300 ORCHARD AVE SILT CO 81652-9500 2661-321-07-014 SNIDER RODNEY K 805 25 RD GRAND JUNCTION CO 81505-9664 2661-321-04-017 SOPER THOMAS DALE 1336 LUTES CROSSINLOMA CO 815246701 2661-321-07-011 SPENDRUP TRENT E PO BOX 4308 GRAND JUNCTION CO 81502-4308 2661-321-09-009 SPOERING CRAIG A 1050 GUNNISON AV GRAND JUNCTION CO 81501-3226 2661-322-02-005 STRONG KENT PO BOX 210 SILT CO 81652-0210 2661-321-12-001 TABER ROBIN M 265 32 1/2 RD GRAND JUNCTION CO 81503-9405 2661-321-10-001 TAFOYA ERNEST I 4637 BASS LAKE CT DEBEQUE CO 81630 2661-321-13-006 TURNAGE IRISH G CUSTODIAN2027 SIERRA WAY SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401 2661-332-00-918 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2764 COMPASS DR GRAND JUNCTION CO 81506-3910 2661-322-03-003 VANOVER DAN JR 3139 BELFORD AVE GRAND JUNCTION CO 81504 2661-321-03-002 VEGA ADVENTURES INVESTM1880 K RD FRUITA CO 81521-9064 2661-323-00-072 VEGA LODGE LLC PO BOX 226 COLLBRAN CO 81624 2661-321-07-002 WELLS SHANE D 337 REDCLIFF CT GRAND JUNCTION CO 81507-4500

60 REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS

61 62 63

PRO2015-0056 - GRADY DRIVE VACATION OF RIGHT OF WAY Review Agency Comments Comments Due Date: 2015-04-29

User Review Date/Time Comment Agency Cpt. Don MC SHERIFF 4/8/2015 No comment. Hendricks 10:25:01 AM FIRE MARSHALL FIRE LOWER 4/8/2015 no comment FRUITA VALLEY 10:34:12 AM Melinda MC TREASURER 4/8/2015 As of April 8, 2015 property taxes are paid in full on parcel number Henderson 10:35:23 AM 2661-332-03-001. MMH MC LONG RANGE MC LONG RANGE 4/8/2015 The proposed vacation does not appear to affect any future PLAN PLAN 4:06:49 PM transportation needs. The property retains frontage on the remainder of Grady Drive, should it ever be improved.The proposed action is generally consistent with the goals and policies of the Mesa County Master Plan. -KS PERRY RUPP UT GV RURAL 4/9/2015 GVP Review Comments POWER 8:17:49 AM 1. The project is in the Grand Valley Power (GVP) service area. 2. There are no Grand Valley Power facilities in the area to be vacated.

Patrick Green MC SURVEYOR 4/9/2015 County Surveyor Patrick Green 9:30:52 AM 1) Exhibit A – Under exhibit A label, add label “Vacation of Grady Drive”. 2) Add an Exhibit that is the graphical representation of the vacation with adjacent lots

Keith Hatch MC ROAD & 4/14/2015 No Comments BRIDGE C 2:17:53 PM MC DEV MC DEV 4/20/2015 No comments. - MC Development Engineering ENGINEER ENGINEER 2:48:42 PM MC LONG RANGE MC LONG RANGE 4/24/2015 Grady Drive is not necessary to provide access to future PLAN PLAN 8:48:46 AM development. No objections. - KS KATHLEEN OZGA US BUREAU OF 4/28/2015 This road vacation does not affect access to any Bureau of REC 9:19:06 AM Reclamation facilities or the State Park. Reclamation has no comments. Daniel Sundstrom MC ADDRESSING 4/29/2015 No comments 7:57:49 AM Jeff Hofman 4/30/2015 Requested the applicant to provide new and revised exhibits 10:11:55 AM 4/30/15. Jeff Hofman 6/11/2015 County Surveyor Approved revised documents on 5/26/2015. 2:12:19 PM

64 NO PUBLIC COMMENTS

65 APPLICANT INFORMATION

66 67 EXHIBIT A Vacation of Grady Drive

A tract of land situated in the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 9 South, Range 93 West, of the 6th Prime Meridian, Mesa County, Colorado described as follows:

The Easterly 121.20 feet of the Northern end of Grady Drive as dedicated on Vega Park Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 9 at Page 136 of the Mesa County Clerk and Recorder’s Office and being further described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 2 Block 8 of said Vega Park Subdivision thence N2°30’00”W a distance of 50.00 feet to the Northern line of said Grady Drive right of way; thence N87°30’00”E along said Northern right of way a distance of 121.20 feet to the Eastern end of said right of way; thence S2°30’00”E along the Eastern end of said right of way distance of 50.00 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 2; thence S87°30’00”W along the North line of said Lot 2 a distance of 121.20 feet to the Point of Beginning.

Said tract of land contains 6,060 square feet as described.

Above legal description written by: Patrick W. Click Colorado registered Professional Surveyor No. 37904 3194 Mesa Avenue Unit B Grand Junction, Colorado 81504

68 '

' VACATED RIGHT OF WAY

POINT OF BEGINNING

LOT 1 GRADY DRIVE

POLARIS SURVEYING

69 RESOLUTION

70

RESOLUTION NO. ______Planning Department No. 2015-0056 VA

APPROVAL OF THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF GRADY DRIVE IN THE VEGA PARK SUBDIVISION, COLLBRAN

WHEREAS, Amy and David Hibberd requested a Vacation of Right-of-Way as described on attached Exhibit "A" Legal Description and more particularly located as shown on attached Exhibit "B”; and

WHEREAS, the staff recommendation was contained in a Project Report dated June 5 and revised June 15, 2015; and

WHEREAS, the public hearing before the Mesa County Board of County Commissioners was held on June 23, 2015.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF MESA FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

THAT public notice requirements of Section 3.1.8 of the Mesa County Land Development Code (2000, as amended) have been met; and

THAT the Right-of-Way Vacation meets the applicable Approval Criteria for Vacations of Rights-of-Way (Section 3.10.6) and General Approval Criteria in Section 3.1.17 of the Mesa County Land Development Code (2000, as amended), including consistency with Intergovernmental Agreements; and

THAT this request is in accordance with the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Mesa County.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN THE COUNTY OF MESA, STATE OF COLORADO:

Page 1 of 4 71

THAT the vacation of a portion of Grady Drive is approved,

PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF June, 2015.

______Rose Pugliese, Chair Board of Mesa County Commissioners

ATTEST:

______Sheila Reiner Clerk and Recorder

Page 2 of 4 72

Exhibit A Legal Description

A tract of land situated in the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 9 South, Range 93 West, of the 6th Prime Meridian, Mesa County, Colorado described as follows: The Easterly 121.20 feet of the Northern end of Grady Drive as dedicated on Vega Park Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 9 at Page 136 of the Mesa County Clerk and Recorder’s Office and being further described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 2 Block 8 of said Vega Park Subdivision thence N2°30’00”W a distance of 50.00 feet to the Northern line of said Grady Drive right of way; thence N87°30’00”E along said Northern right of way a distance of 121.20 feet to the Eastern end of said right of way; thence S2°30’00”E along the Eastern end of said right of way distance of 50.00 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 2; thence S87°30’00”W along the North line of said Lot 2 a distance of 121.20 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said tract of land contains 6,060 square feet as described.

Page 3 of 4 73

Exhibit B - Location Map

Page 4 of 4 74 PROJECT REVIEW

75 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 June 9, 2015

I. 2015-0061 VA BURBANK STREET & ALLEY VACATION OF RIGHT OF WAY Property Owner(s): Charles W. Peterson and the Lily Silzell Trust Representative: Eddie Fitzpatrick Location: 1272 & 1278 M ¼ Rd, Loma, CO. 81524 (Near M ¼ Rd & Rail Road Right of Way) Parcel #s: 2691-334-15-029, 2691-334-15- 037 Zoning: AFT Planner: Jeff Hofman, 970.254.4192, [email protected] Request: To vacate Burbank Street between Patterson Street on the west and the Rail Road Right of Way on the east and the adjoining north-south alley in the Loma Townsite.

Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

Location and Zoning Map:

Page 1 of 6

76 II. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Zoning within a 5,280-foot area:  Agricultural, Forestry, Transitional (AFT)  PUD  C-2

Land Uses within a 5,280-foot area:  Residential  Agricultural  Commercial

Applicable Area Plans  Lower Valley o Future Land Use for these parcels is Loma Residential Medium Low to Medium High

III. PROJECT HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION:

The applicants are requesting the vacation of an un-built portion of the Burbank Street right-of-way from the railroad on the east to the remainder of the Patterson Street right-of-way on the west. This request also includes the alley right-of-way between the Peterson properties and the Lily Silzell Trust properties that is located between Burbank Street on the north and M ¼ on the south.

These rights-of-way were platted as part of the Loma Townsite plat in 1908. The street and alley were never developed. The Lily Silzel Trust holds lots 13-22, Block 13. These lots were of standard size given the time period; 25-feet by 130-feet. Peterson owns lots 1-11, Block 26 and lots 11-17, Block 27 of the Loma Townsite plus the Teller Street right-of-way that was vacated in 2008. Peterson’s lots are even smaller than the typical townsite lots due to the existing Denver and Rio Grande Railroad (now Union Pacific) right-of-way that bisected the area when the Loma Townsite was platted.

The small original townsite lots are currently considered legal non-conforming lots because of their size. They can be conveyed individually even though they may be unbuildable under today’s standards. A single lot is located between the Lily Silzell Trust property and M ¼ Road. This lot has been sold between multiple California residents since the early 1970s. It contains a drainage ditch which runs through the length of the property and is an example of an unbuildable individual lot.

The request can only meet the right-of-way vacation standard of not landlocking any parcel if the lots are re-plated since these individual lots can be conveyed separately. Re-platting the multiple lots as owned by each entity could also address the need for utility and access easements issues that were raised during the review process.

Vacated Right-of-Way in Area Map

The (pink) right-of-ways west of the subject site were vacated in May of 1945. The streets south of M ¼ Road were vacated in August 1934 and the street between the Peterson properties to the east was vacated in April 2008.

Page 2 of 6

77

Proposed Rights Of Way Vacation:

Page 3 of 6

78 Aerial Photo

IV. COMPLIANCE WITH MESA COUNTY LAND USE POLICIES AND MESA COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

Section 3.10 Vacation of Rights-of-Way and Renaming of Streets The applicable criteria of Section 3.10 apply. This Code Section sets forth the following criteria for evaluating right-of-way vacation requests.

Section 3.10.6.A the requested vacation will not:

(1) Create any landlocked parcels; This application will not create any landlocked parcels or lots if the individual Loma Townsite lots are re-plated to correspond to the existing ownership. This can be made a condition of the vacation. This criterion can be met.

(2) Negatively impact adjacent parcels; This vacation will not impact adjacent properties. The property to the north and the properties to the west could potentially use the existing Patterson Street right-of-way on the west. This right-of-way was partially vacated in 1945 and contains a drainage ditch. Currently these adjacent properties are held in common ownership. All properties adjacent to the rights-of-way requested for vacation have frontage on roads or have access easements. This criterion has been met.

Page 4 of 6

79 (3) Restrict access to any parcel so that access is unreasonable or economically prohibitive; This vacation of right of way will not restrict access to any of the adjacent properties. This right-of-way is not used for access to any residences. This criterion has been met.

(4) Reduce the quality of public service to any parcel of land; Part of the electrical service to these properties is located in the alley that is requested for vacation. Utility easements for electrical or other services can be created when the individual lots are re-plated. This can be made a condition of the vacation. This criterion can be met.

(5) Be inconsistent with any adopted transportation plan, including the Grand Junction/Mesa County MPO Transportation Plan; The right of way proposed to be vacated is not on the Grand Valley Circulation Plan and a vacation will not be inconsistent with the plan. This criterion has been met.

(6) Affect the historic movement of livestock; This right-of-way has no known historic movement of livestock associated with it. This criterion has been met.

(7) Create a circuitous alternate route for area residents or other members of the public; The right-of-ways proposed to be vacated do not have a constructed road. This criterion has been met.

(8) Negatively affect utility access or utility distribution networks; or As stated above, Part of the electrical service to these properties is located in the alley that is requested for vacation. Utility easements for electrical or other services can be created when the individual lots are re-plated. This can be made a condition of the vacation. This criterion can be met.

(9) Eliminate public access to public lands. This right of way is not located adjacent to public lands and does not provide public access for any public land in the area. No public land is located adjacent to this vacation area. This criterion has been met.

Section 3.1.17 General Approval Criteria must also be considered for Vacation of Right-of- Way requests:

A. Complies with all applicable standards, provisions, and purposes of this Land Development Code; It appears that the proposed vacation of this right of way is consistent with all applicable standards, provisions, and purposes of the Land Development Code. This criterion has been.

B. Is consistent with review agency comments; The comments of the County Surveyor have been address with a re-submittal of the legal description and plat exhibit. Other review agency comments can be addressed with a re-plat of the property. This criterion can be met.

Page 5 of 6

80 C. Is consistent with applicable intergovernmental agreements (IGA) between the County and other entities. These properties are not affected by intergovernmental agreements. This criterion has been met.

V. REVIEW COMMENTS: All review agency comments received are included in the binder for this project.

VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS: No public comments were received on this project by the date of the project review.

VII. PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends approval with conditions of the request for a right of way vacation and adoption of the resolution. Conditions include:

1. The vacation is only effective upon the re-plat of the Charles W. Peterson properties and the Lily Silzell Trust properties into a total of two individual lots;

2. The review agency comments shall be addressed through the re-plat process.

The basis for this recommendation is: The petition demonstrates compliance with Section 3.10.6.A (1 - 9) and 3.1.17 (A-C) of the Mesa County Land Development Code (2000, as amended).

Review Summary

Vacation of Rights-of-Way Approval Criteria 3.10.6.A: 1 - no landlocked parcels –can be met 2 - negative impact on adjacent parcels – has been met 3 - restrict access to any parcel – has been met 4 - reduce quality of services –can be met 5 - consistency with transportation plan – has been met 6 – affect the historic movement of livestock – has been met 7 – create a circuitous route for area residents or the public – has been met 8 – negatively affect utility access – can be met 9 – eliminate public access to public lands – has been met

General Approval Criteria 3.1.17: A - compliance with the Land Development Code –has been met B - consistency with review agency comments –can be met C - consistency with IGAs – has been met

VIII. BOCC Action: (6/23/2015):

Page 6 of 6

81 HEARING NOTICE

82 Burbank Street & Alley Parcel/Notification Map Vacation Of Right of Way 2015-0061 VA 06-05-2015

Notification Buffer

2691-334-15-029 2691-334-15-037 LegendLegend

5280ft buffer Parcels "

AFT 83

0.65 0 0.65 1.3 1.95 2.6 Miles PARCEL_NUM OWNER MAILING CITY ST ZIP 2693-032-00-006 1297 13 ROAD LLC 782 23 7/10 RD GRAND JCO 81505 2693-034-01-001 ALLEN LORI L 1246 13 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524 2693-041-00-172 ALSTATT KYLE 1720 12 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-334-10-003 ANDERSEN JOHN W PO BOX 181 LOMA CO 81524 2691-343-00-019 ARMENTA JOSEPH ROBERT 4675 REED ST WHEAT CO 80033 2691-343-13-008 ASHEIM CHRISTY PO BOX 91 LOMA CO 81524-0091 2691-343-36-007 ASHEIM CHRISTY D PO BOX 91 LOMA CO 81524-0091 2691-343-00-015 ASHLOCK THOMAS R 1315 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524-8704 2693-042-03-003 BALAZ WILLIAM P JR 1284 12 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9618 2691-334-07-002 BARCON ROBERT 1347 PATTERSON LOMA CO 815249511 2691-321-01-006 BARNHOLDT BRIAN A 1196 RANCE CANYON LOMA CO 81524-8700 2691-334-23-007 BARRY DORIS Y 1318 GARFIELD ST LOMA CO 81524 2691-274-00-887 BARRY JOHN P 1165 P RD LOMA CO 81524-9549 2691-333-00-373 BARTLEY WILLIAM C 1309 12 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9646 2691-321-01-004 BEAR RONALD W 1199 RANCE CANYON LOMA CO 81524 2691-342-10-004 BEDELL JOE CLAYTON 1337 M 3/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-8601 2691-334-22-003 BEECHER BLAINE R TRUST 1323 13 RD LOMA CO 81524-9612 2691-342-10-001 BEECRAFT DONALD 1366 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524 2693-042-00-176 BENHAM KIM 1217 M RD LOMA CO 81524-9625 2691-343-02-018 BENTLEY JOE E 1311 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9728 2693-042-05-006 BESSERT ROBERT 1255 12 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9621 2691-321-05-004 BINDER DARELL A 900 S 15TH ST CLINTONIA 52732 2691-343-29-001 BITTLE DORTHY M PO BOX 38 LOMA CO 81524-0038 2693-042-00-066 BLAKE EDWARD 1279 12 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9621 2693-082-00-914 BLM 2815 H RD GRAND JCO 81506 2691-343-34-002 BOEKEL PATRICIA ANN 1335 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9728 2693-032-08-001 BOHNE RICHARD T 1311 L 7/10 RD LOMA CO 815248709 2691-334-09-005 BOWERS GARY 1290 HIGHWAY 6 ANDLOMA CO 81524 2691-343-05-004 BRACH JAYTON S 1339 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-284-00-454 BRACH JIM 1265 N 3/4 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-332-00-857 BRACH JIMMY R 1441 12 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9526 2691-284-01-003 BRACH JOHN W 1265 N 3/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9505 2691-273-00-206 BRACH TONY LEE 1428 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524-9444 2691-284-01-004 BRACH TONY LEE JR 1428 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524-9444 2691-343-19-004 BRADLEY BRUCE E 1307 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9714 2691-344-00-851 BRADLEY MICHAEL S 1384 M RD LOMA CO 81524-9792 2691-284-00-597 BRADY SCOTT M PO BOX 57D LOMA CO 81524 2691-342-00-853 BRYAN FAMILY TRUST 1399 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524-9746 2691-342-10-008 BRYANT KEITH R 1332 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-284-00-832 BUNKELMAN TRAVIS R 1288 N RD LOMA CO 81524-9537 2691-344-00-850 BURBRIDGE DONALD E 1380 M RD LOMA CO 81524-9792 2693-032-05-001 BURDETT TIMOTHY PAUL 1345 M RD LOMA CO 81524-9793 2691-343-07-004 CALVARY CHAPEL OF FRUITAPO BOX 487 FRUITA CO 815210487 2691-343-01-009 CAMPBELL DAVID 1347 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-343-18-005 CAREY BOBBY LEE JR 1314 OURAY ST LOMA CO 81524 2691-343-36-001 CARNAL-BURCHETT D'ANN L 1334 13 RD LOMA CO 81524

84 2693-032-08-008 CATT WILLIAM D PO BOX 25 LOMA CO 815240025 2691-343-15-001 CENTENO JOSE A 1315 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 815249714 2691-332-33-001 CHAMBERLAIN KELLY W 1245 M 3/4 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-332-00-841 CHAMBERLAIN TODD 1231 M 3/4 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-343-39-003 CHATFIELD KIMBERLY C PO BOX 62 LOMA CO 81524-0062 2691-334-30-001 CHESSMORE RONALD B 1303 13 RD UNIT 115 LOMA CO 81524-9612 2691-343-05-002 CLARK JESSE KAY 1335 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-344-02-001 COLE DAVID W 1366 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9713 2691-342-00-858 COLLINS CARL G 1322 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9728 2691-343-01-006 Confidential Owner 1349 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524 2693-032-00-008 Confidential Owner 1275 13 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-343-35-002 COPPLE DENISE D 1346 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9713 2691-344-05-002 COUTEE DAWN C 1357 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9714 2691-343-40-003 COX LESTER E 1324 M RD LOMA CO 81524-9705 2691-284-00-782 CRABB BRETT G 1411 13 RD LOMA CO 81524-9733 2691-284-00-519 CRAIG CHARLES H 1409 13 RD LOMA CO 81524-9733 2691-343-16-006 CROSS EDDIE G 2912 PATTERSON RD GRAND JCO 81504-5441 2693-032-08-009 DALEY TOM F 1320 L 7/10 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-342-00-854 DALLEY RODNEY E 1378 13 RD LOMA CO 81524-9730 2691-344-06-001 DALLMAN ORVILLE R 1363 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9714 2691-334-00-009 DANGLER S VALARIE PO BOX 4282 GRAND JCO 81502-4282 2693-041-00-133 DAVENPORT JOHN W 1275 M RD LOMA CO 81524-9629 2691-334-27-001 DAVIDSON LOUISE ELEANOR 1288 CORONADO AVELOMA CO 81524 2691-343-20-925 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR4201 E ARKANSAS AVEDENVER CO 80222 2693-041-00-193 DESSERICH DANIEL 1274 12 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9620 2693-051-00-172 DETTMER WARREN B PO BOX 40204 GRAND JCO 815040204 2691-334-15-002 DEVLIN GWENDOLINE J 36 S SAN MATEO ST REDLAN CA 92373-5097 2693-042-00-109 DORSCHER CLINT L 1235 M RD LOMA CO 81524-9627 2691-344-06-002 DORSCHER DARLEEN 1377 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9714 2691-343-04-003 DOWD JAMES G 1313 1/2 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9728 2691-343-38-001 DOWD MARGUERITE REVOC 2533 WESTWOOD DR GRAND JCO 81505-1047 2691-343-18-007 DOWNEY HOWARD 1315 BRIDGER ST LOMA CO 81524-3700 2691-321-01-007 DRAZIC HELEN K 1194 RANCE CANYON LOMA CO 81524-8700 2691-334-29-006 DUFOUR MARY IRENE PO BOX 44 RANGLE CO 816480044 2691-331-00-829 DUNLAP DENISE L 1376 12 3/4 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-344-02-002 EISENMAN JEFFREY A 1372 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9713 2691-343-35-001 EISENMAN RONALD E PO BOX 220 LOMA CO 81524-0220 2693-044-00-117 ERTL 1221 LLC 1130 FRANCIS ST UNITLONGMO CO 80501 2693-032-08-011 ESPINOZA-HERRERA JUAN 1276 13 2/10 RD LOMA CO 81524-8702 2691-284-00-534 FARMER KATHRYN D 1278 N RD LOMA CO 81524-9537 2691-341-00-414 FAULKNER RONALD C 1369 14 RD LOMA CO 81524-9750 2691-334-08-002 FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD INC2066 HIGHWAY 6 AND FRUITA CO 81521 2693-042-00-025 FISHER ZACHARY D 1249 M RD LOMA CO 81524 2693-032-08-004 FITZGERALD DANIEL J TRUST 1319 L 7/10 RD LOMA CO 81524-8709 2691-334-03-003 FLINT RYAN 1280 1/2 M RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-334-17-009 FOSTER FRANCIS M 1329 13 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-342-00-829 FUNDAZURI FLORENCIO 1376 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524-9745

85 2691-343-22-003 GALLEGOS MATTHEW 2257 S SEVILLE CIR GRAND JCO 81506-8508 2693-032-08-007 GENE HOLBROOK ENTERPRIS4504 W PORT AU PRINGLENDA AZ 85306-3630 2693-031-00-026 GIESKE HENRY M 540 PINNACLE CT GRAND JCO 81507-1430 2691-342-10-002 GILBERT DONALD D 1333 M 3/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-8601 2691-341-00-848 GODWIN JESSIE M PO BOX 9 LOMA CO 81524-0009 2691-332-00-851 GOIZUETA VICTOR 1218 M 3/4 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-341-00-827 GRAF DAVID D 1360 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9728 2691-342-00-856 GRAND BEARD TRUST PO BOX 7 FRUITA CO 81521-0007 2693-031-00-003 GREENSTONE LLC 866 24 RD GRAND JCO 81505-9634 2693-031-07-006 GRINOLDS KEITH J 1278 HENRYS LN LOMA CO 81524-8400 2691-344-00-745 GROSS SCOTT H 1374 M RD LOMA CO 81524-9792 2691-343-06-008 GUERETTA RICARDO F 1333 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-324-00-521 HAIMERL DENNIS J 1187 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9631 2691-343-00-016 HALE DIRK E 1342 M RD LOMA CO 81524-9792 2693-032-05-002 HALE MARY A 1347 M RD LOMA CO 81524-9793 2691-343-00-017 HALE TONY 921 PRINCE WAY FRUITA CO 81521-9538 2691-284-00-532 HALL WILLIAM LEWIS 1256 N RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-284-00-722 HALL WILLIAM LEWIS JR 1256 N RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-343-16-007 HAMILTON JOHN R 1329 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524-8704 2691-343-16-004 HAMPTON WARREN S 1320 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9713 2691-284-00-557 HARER GEORGE L 1280 N RD LOMA CO 81524-9537 2691-334-02-010 HART MARY J 1284 M RD LOMA CO 81524-9628 2691-333-00-568 HARTMAN TED PO BOX 155 LOMA CO 81524-0155 2691-284-00-721 HATCH KAREN S 1410 12 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-334-29-005 HEATH AARON 1630 PURDY MESA RDWHITEWCO 815279640 2691-343-05-003 HENDERSON DONALD L 1337 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-341-00-840 HENDERSON TODD 1380 13 3/4 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-321-01-005 HENDRICKS DONALD L 1198 RANCE CANYON LOMA CO 81524-8700 2693-042-03-004 HENDRICKS DONALD S PO BOX 4 LOMA CO 81524 2691-343-05-006 HENDRICKSON STEVE R 1319 1/2 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9728 2693-031-07-003 HIMES JUSTIN P 1281 HENRY'S LN LOMA CO 81524 2691-333-00-256 HOFFMAN PHYLLIS J 22970 WCR 22 HUDSONCO 80642 2691-341-00-862 HOLLERN KELLY L 1365 13 3/4 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-334-08-003 HOLLY SUGAR CORPORATIONPO BOX 581 BRAWLECA 92227-0581 2693-042-00-188 HORN EVELYN J 1261 12 1/4 RD LOMA CO 815249619 2691-284-00-588 HUBBARD WILLIAM EUGENE PO BOX 245 LOMA CO 8152402459733 2691-343-37-002 HUSTON H THOMAS 1343 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9714 2691-344-00-747 J&C WILLIAMS FAMILY TRUS 1360 M RD LOMA CO 81524 2693-044-00-137 JACKSON H RONALD 1226 12 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9620 2693-032-08-002 JACKSON RANDAL S 1315 L 7/10 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-333-00-553 JEYS PATRICIA K 38 KERI CIR NORTH SUT 84054-1531 2691-333-00-554 JEYS THOMAS R JR 3498 N 15TH ST GRAND JCO 81506-5267 2691-334-06-002 JOHNS JEFF 1290 GILPIN ST LOMA CO 81524 2691-343-01-008 JOHNSON JUSTIN W 1345 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-333-00-442 JOHNSON ROBERT THOREL 5104 S GOLD BUG WAAURORACO 80016 2691-344-05-001 JONES JACK BERNARD 1351 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9714 2693-032-06-005 JONES JAMI D 1312 L 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-8711

86 2691-344-00-845 JONES JAMIE R 1382 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9713 2691-343-18-004 JONES JANE ELLEN 1319 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-343-31-005 JONES JEFFERY BOB 1314 CRAWFORD ST LOMA CO 81524 2691-343-19-002 JONES NANCY L PO BOX 4114 GRAND JCO 81502-4114 2691-332-34-002 JORDAN LINDA L 832 21 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9315 2691-343-00-011 KEM MARY J 1332 M RD LOMA CO 81524-9792 2691-333-00-567 KIEFER BARBARA ANNE PO BOX 155 LOMA CO 81524-0155 2693-031-07-001 KINDALL WILMER L 1365 M RD LOMA CO 81524-9793 2691-343-33-002 KING ELDON D JR 1345 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-343-17-001 KING ELDON D SR PO BOX 94 LOMA CO 81524-0094 2691-343-04-002 KING JUSTIN 1317 1/2 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9728 2691-343-32-002 KING SHANE PO BOX 153 LOMA CO 81524 2691-343-02-012 KIRKPATRICK TOM 1412 P RD LOMA CO 81524-9719 2693-032-08-012 KOPPENHAFER BRAD 1278 13 2/10 RD LOMA CO 81524-8702 2693-032-06-006 KRAUS ALAN EARL PO BOX 2085 GRAND JCO 81502 2691-341-09-001 KROGMAN DAVID P PO BOX 243 LOMA CO 81524-0243 2691-343-13-007 KROSS LLC 4471 DEAN MARTIN RLAS VEG NV 89103 2693-031-07-002 KRUMM TARALAH L 1291 HENRY'S LN LOMA CO 81524 2691-334-31-002 KYLE WILLIAM W PO BOX 40 LOMA CO 81524-0040 2691-343-32-001 LABROUCHE ALBERT R 1334 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524-8705 2691-344-00-746 LAMBERT DONALD J 1356 M RD LOMA CO 81524-9792 2691-333-00-552 LAWTON KENNETH G 1320 12 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9600 2691-273-00-208 LEISCHUCK EDWARD A 1410 14 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-343-07-007 LEVY GENE 265 S LOCUST ST DENVER CO 80224-1049 2691-343-04-001 LIVINGSTON DAVID M 1317 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9728 2691-334-28-958 LOMA COMMUNITY CHURCHPO BOX 116 LOMA CO 81524-0116 2691-334-17-004 LOMA LLC 3760 BEECHWOOD GRAND JCO 81506 2691-334-40-001 LOMA SECURITIES CO UNKNOWN 2691-342-10-003 LONG HOWARD L 1335 M 3/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-8601 2693-041-01-001 LOPEZ LEO J PO BOX 463 FRUITA CO 81521-0463 2693-041-01-002 LOPEZ ORACIO B 1284 12 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9620 2691-334-04-948 LOWER VALLEY FIRE PROTECPO BOX 520 FRUITA CO 81521 2693-041-00-132 LUCERO EUGENE 1280 12 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-334-31-001 M & S PROPERTIES II LLC PO BOX 97 FRUITA CO 81521 2691-343-13-003 MAHAN JOHN BRUCE PO BOX 148 LOMA CO 815240148 2691-343-14-004 MANN ROBERT JAMES 1328 13 1/8 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-343-07-016 MARINERS INVESTMENT COM2227 E FLORIDA AVE 1HEMET CA 925444752 2691-324-00-796 MARTIN JACK A TRUST 1305 12 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-332-00-431 MARTIN MARIETTA G FAMILY1229 M 3/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9637 2691-343-05-008 MCALISTER JASON E 1315 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9728 2691-342-01-002 MCBROOM JOHN R 1390 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524-9745 2693-041-00-235 MCCARTHY STACY PO BOX 141 LOMA CO 81524 2691-332-00-834 MCCHESNEY SUSAN 1220 M 3/4 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-343-37-001 MCCLASKEY GERALD LLOYD 1339 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-332-00-475 MCCORMICK DAVID SHAY 1217 M 3/4 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-343-02-011 MCDANIEL CURTIS R 1305 1/2 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9728 2693-032-08-006 MCDONALD DANIEL T PO BOX 1163 LAKE CITCO 812351163

87 2691-331-00-249 MCGEE KIMMY D 1370 12 3/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9530 2691-284-00-720 MCGHGHY ELY H 1418 12 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9525 2691-324-00-550 MCKNIGHT NATHAN 1327 12 RD LOMA CO 81524 2693-042-05-004 MCLEISH DENNIS A 1251 12 1/2 RD LOMA CO 815249621 2691-342-00-820 MCMAHON ROBERT 1377 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524-9746 2691-284-00-589 MCNIEL ARTHUR LEE 1425 13 RD LOMA CO 81524-9733 2693-031-07-004 MEASE JESSE L 1279 HENRYS LN LOMA CO 81524-8400 2691-343-00-018 MEDINA ALAN 1338 M RD LOMA CO 815249792 2691-343-05-001 MELTON MICHAEL J 1341 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524-8704 2691-324-00-549 MERLUZZI PAUL E 1180 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9630 2691-342-00-942 MESA COUNTY VALLEY SCHO2115 GRAND AVE GRAND JCO 81501-8007 2691-331-32-002 MILLER DOUGLAS L 1363 123/4 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-332-34-003 MILLER FAMILY TRUST 1370 12 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-344-07-002 MILLER ROBERT A 1375 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524 2693-044-00-093 MONUMENT VIEW RANCH LT1142 O RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-332-00-775 MOORE WILLIAM J 1225 M 3/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9637 2691-343-33-001 MOORE WILLIAM W JR 1341 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9728 2691-343-38-002 MORGAN BRANDON M 1318 CLEVELAND LOMA CO 81524-9652 2693-042-05-005 MOSCHETTI JOSEPH H 1253 12 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9621 2691-332-00-831 MURTEN CORK R PO BOX 68 LOMA CO 81524-0068 2691-334-13-002 NAKABAYASHI MEREDITH L T1292 HIGHWAY 6 ANDLOMA CO 81524 2691-284-00-831 NASH TERRY LYNN 1278 N RD LOMA CO 81524-9537 2691-284-00-715 NELSON CURTIS L 1294 N RD LOMA CO 81524-9537 2691-343-02-016 NELSON THAD L 1307 1/2 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-343-03-004 NELSON TIMOTHY R PO BOX 236 LOMA CO 81524-0236 2691-334-02-011 NIELSON ROXIE LEE 1287 CORONADO ST LOMA CO 81524-9650 2693-032-08-016 O'CONNOR SHAWN 1279 13 2/10 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-344-00-555 OLLER CHRISTOPHER A 1387 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9714 2691-343-02-009 ORTH JAMES R 1303 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9728 2693-032-08-018 OUELLETTE JOSEPH ROGER 1310 L 7/10 RD LOMA CO 81524-8709 2691-341-00-861 OWENS DUSTIN R 1367 14 RD LOMA CO 81524-9750 2691-334-37-001 OWENS JOLENE C 1293 MILLER ST LOMA CO 815246700 2691-324-00-523 PACE THARRON CHARLES 1329 12 RD LOMA CO 81524-9604 2691-343-04-004 PEDERSEN JOHN P 1313 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9728 2691-334-16-002 PETERSON CHARLES W 1278 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9632 2693-032-08-013 PETERSON TROY A 1280 13 2/10 RD LOMA CO 81524-8702 2691-332-00-474 PHELPS KURT W 1215 M 3/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9637 2691-342-00-855 PHELPS SHYREL L 1348 M 3/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9636 2693-042-06-001 PILIBOSIAN STEVE PO BOX 504 GRAND JCO 81502 2693-041-00-236 PUCKETT RANDALL G 1258 12 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-334-00-007 RAINE CASS 1275 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9635 2691-331-41-002 RAMSAY JAMES C 1352 12 3/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9504 2691-344-00-744 REED MICHAEL W 1368 M RD LOMA CO 81524-9792 2693-032-08-014 REID PATRICIA J 330 OAK RD GLENSIDPA 19038-3917 2691-343-39-002 RHYNE JUSTIN R 1309 CLEVELAND ST LOMA CO 81524 2693-031-07-007 RIGGS NATHAN DEAN 1280 HENRYS LN LOMA CO 81524-8400 2691-334-12-003 RITTER JESSE D 1365 13 3/4 RD LOMA CO 81524

88 2691-343-05-005 ROBERTSON STEVEN L 1319 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9728 2691-343-02-019 RODABAUGH TIMOTHY A 2935 SHELLEY DR GRAND JCO 81503 2693-044-00-136 ROHR RUSSELL R 1228 12 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9620 2691-343-00-013 ROSE TIMOTHY C 1310 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524-8703 2691-343-20-007 ROSS GERRAD S 2174 13TH ST MITCHE NE 693671314 2693-042-02-001 ROUSH CHARLES S PO BOX 129 LOMA CO 81524-0129 2691-334-23-001 RUSSELL SPENCER TODD 1288 HOTTES LN LOMA CO 81524-8401 2691-273-00-003 SADLER FORREST TODD 1848 M RD FRUITA CO 81521-9635 2691-333-00-566 SADLER JACQUELINE M 1346 12 RD LOMA CO 81524-9603 2691-341-00-828 SANDERS DARIN G 748 GRAND AVE MANCO CO 813289243 2691-343-14-007 SEAL GARY L 1223 E BROOKS ST NORMA OK 73031 2691-334-03-002 SECRETARY OF HOUSING AN4400 WILL ROGERS PAOKLAHO OK 73108 2691-334-00-014 SEELEY DUSTIN R 1270 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524 2693-031-00-019 SERVE EUGENE A PO BOX 96 LOMA CO 81524-0096 2693-033-00-017 SERVE MICHAEL J 1329 L 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-8711 2691-332-00-840 SHARPE TOM 1227 M 3/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9637 2691-342-00-857 SHAWLER EVERETT E 1379 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524 2693-043-00-116 SHIELDS PHILLIP K 2032 E SILVER ST TUCSONAZ 85719-3422 2691-343-34-001 SHOPE GALEN A 1340 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524-8705 2691-321-05-006 SHURTLEFF CHRIS J PO BOX 276 LOMA CO 815240276 2693-032-08-015 SIEVERS MEGAN 1281 13 2/10 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-334-15-037 SILZELL LILY TRUST 738 23 1/2 RD GRAND JCO 81505 2693-032-08-010 SIMONSON A BRENT 1318 L 7/10 RD LOMA CO 81524-8709 2691-344-00-846 SLATER TIMOTHY D PO BOX 235 LOMA CO 81524 2691-334-06-003 SMILANICH MARCI PO BOX 99 LOMA CO 81524-0099 2691-334-36-004 SMITH & SMITH CONSTRUCT1339 N RD LOMA CO 81524-9404 2691-334-35-001 SMITH AARON B 1339 N RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-343-02-008 SMITH ANDREW P 1348 13 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-342-03-002 SMITH DARRYL A 1345 N RD LOMA CO 81524-9404 2691-343-36-002 SMITH MERLE PO BOX 664 VAN BURMO 639650664 2691-343-03-003 SMITH MERLE ANDREW PO BOX 664 VAN BURMO 639650664 2691-342-01-001 SMITH MICHELE M 1339 N RD LOMA CO 81524-9404 2691-334-14-003 SMITH ROD 1339 N ROAD LOMA CO 81524 2691-343-40-002 SMITH ROD CONSTRUCTION 1339 N RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-343-40-004 SMITH RODNEY A 1339 N RD LOMA CO 81524-9404 2691-342-03-001 SMITH RODNEY A JR 1339 N RD LOMA CO 81524-9404 2693-042-05-003 SMITH TODD ALLAN AND SM1257 12 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-343-09-008 SMITH TOMAS 1336 13 RD LOMA CO 81524-9451 2691-324-00-794 SMOLHA MARILYN 1313 12 RD LOMA CO 81524-9602 2693-042-00-179 SOMERVILLE WILLIAM PO BOX 126 FRUITA CO 81521-0126 2691-342-10-006 SPATAFORA INKA 1339 M 3/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-8601 2693-042-00-177 SPIESS MORRIS K 1298 12 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-332-33-002 STANBERRY TIMOTHY A PO BOX 156 LOMA CO 81524 2691-342-00-924 STATE DEPT OF HIGHWAYS 606 S 9TH ST STE 1 GRAND JCO 81501-7768 2691-343-14-006 STERNER ANDREW L 1308 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524 2693-032-08-017 STEWART LANCE R 1312 L 7/10 RD LOMA CO 81524-8709 2691-344-00-847 STOUT CRAIG A 1392 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9713

89 2691-332-34-001 STREETER LONNIE R 1374 12 RD LOMA CO 81524-9603 2691-334-19-006 STURM STEVEN RAY PO BOX 986 GRAND JCO 81502 2691-334-19-010 SULLIVAN JAMES J 1295 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9635 2693-032-08-005 SUTPHIN CLINTON A 1321 L 7/10 RD LOMA CO 81524-8709 2693-042-02-002 SWEARSON DAVID 1251 12 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9619 2691-343-21-002 TARIN ARMANDO 1302 HOTTES LOMA CO 81524-9446 2691-344-04-002 TEMPLE PHILLIP E 1360 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9713 2691-343-26-003 TERRELL DAVID K 765 S 1/2 RD MACK CO 81525-9777 2691-324-00-795 THIBAULT ETHAN EDWARD 1303 12 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-343-06-006 THOMPSON DUSTIN DWYN 1331 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524-8704 2691-343-00-020 TICE SHERRY RUTH 1330 M RD LOMA CO 81524 2693-043-00-112 TILLER CHRIS 1247 12 1/2 RD LOMA CO 815249621 2693-032-06-007 TILLER CHRIS B 1247 12 1/2 RD LOMA CO 815249621 2691-321-05-005 TMF ENTERPRISES LLC PO BOX 212 LOMA CO 81524 2691-344-04-001 TOWERS RONNY H 1354 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 815249713 2691-334-12-002 TRIGG-GROSSETETE KELLY PO1619 SIGMA CHI NE ALBUQU NM 87106 2691-334-31-918 U S POSTAL SERVICE 1345 13 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-334-00-838 UNA DEVELOPMENT LLC PO BOX 809 SILT CO 81652 2691-284-00-839 URIGUEN DRAKE 1423 13 RD UNIT C LOMA CO 81524 2691-344-07-001 VANCE RICH R 3116 B 1/2 RD GRAND JCO 81503-9621 2691-284-00-533 VASEY JOHN E 1266 N RD LOMA CO 81524-9535 2691-343-05-007 VASQUEZ SERGIO R 1315 1/2 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9728 2691-342-00-822 VERMEULEN KARIN 1381 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-342-10-007 VICKERS GERALD CHRISTOPH1336 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9728 2691-324-00-703 WALGREN ANDREW C 1315 12 RD LOMA CO 815249602 2691-321-01-003 WARD MATT L 1195 RANCE CANYON LOMA CO 81524-8700 2691-343-07-022 WAREHAM O BERT 1732 W 540 N UNIT 44SAINT G UT 847701619 2691-284-00-847 WAREHAM STEPHEN L PO BOX 55 LOMA CO 81524-0055 2691-344-08-001 WATSON JO ANN PRINCE 1355 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-331-00-828 WELLS DALE A 1223 13 RD LOMA CO 81524 2693-042-06-002 WELLS FAMILY TRUST 813 LINCOLN CT PALISADCO 81526 2691-343-01-007 WELLS JENNIFER 1343 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-332-00-242 WESTERN SLOPE CATTLEMEN1369 12 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524 2693-032-08-003 WHITESIDE DAVID K 1317 L 7/10 RD LOMA CO 81524-8709 2691-334-00-010 WIDHAMMER DANIEL 1251 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524-9635 2693-044-00-118 WILCOX RICHARD B 1223 13 RD LOMA CO 81524-9608 2691-333-00-441 WILKINSON CECIL R 1212 M RD LOMA CO 81524-9605 2691-343-00-014 WILLCOCKSON JOSEPH W 1313 13 3/10 RD LOMA CO 81524-8704 2691-284-00-781 WILLIAMS RONALD LANCE 1290 N RD LOMA CO 81524-9537 2691-334-10-002 WILSON DONALD PO BOX 102 LOMA CO 81524-0102 2691-343-18-006 WININGER DAVID R 1312 CRAWFORD LOMA CO 81524-9648 2691-334-19-009 WISTRAND LORI 1295 M 1/4 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-341-00-826 WOOD DONALD R 1370 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9728 2691-321-01-013 WRIGHT GREGORY P 1235 Q 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-284-00-716 WRIGHT JEFFERY LEE JR 1292 N RD LOMA CO 81524 2691-344-08-002 WULKEN CRAIG R 1361 M 1/2 RD LOMA CO 81524-9728 2691-321-01-002 YOCOM ARRON M 1191 RANCE CANYON LOMA CO 81524

90 2691-334-01-005 YOUNG DALE B 1289 CORONADO ST LOMA CO 81524 Eddie Fitzpatrick 1272 M 1/4 Rd LOMA CO 81524

91 REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS

92 93 94

PRO2015-0061 - Burbank VAC OF RIGHT OF WAY Review Agency Comments Comments Due Date: 2015-05-11

User Review Date/Time Comment Agency KEVIN WILLIAMS IRR GV 4/20/2015 GVDD has added a .pdf of the area. The Drainage West and South DRAINAGE 2:24:55 PM of the application is the Loma Drain, an natural drain of the Country. GVDD's South Padia Drain enters the Loma Wash within the South West corner of the parcel in the application. No GVDD facilities are impacted currently. Melinda MC TREASURER 4/20/2015 As of April 20, 2015 property taxes are due in the amount of Henderson 3:34:03 PM $493.52 on parcel number 2691-334-15-034. MMH PERRY RUPP UT GV RURAL 4/21/2015 GVP Review Comments POWER 8:44:20 AM 1. The project is in the Grand Valley Power (GVP) service area. 2. Existing electrical services are on site. 3. The existing overhead and underground electrical services should be located on the ROW Vacation drawing. 4. Part of the electrical service is located in the alley to be vacated. Utility easements may need to be created to protect the rights of the existing electrical service. 5. Any relocation of existing overhead power lines, poles, guy/anchors, underground lines, transformers or any other Grand Valley Power equipment is at developer’s expense.

Patrick Green MC SURVEYOR 4/21/2015 County Surveyor Patrick Green 11:19:58 AM 1) Add MCPP No. 2015-0061 above Title Block 2) Revise legal description on survey and Exhibit A, which reads ….and the centerline of Patterson Street.. to read …and the west right-of-way line of Patterson Street……

FIRE MARSHALL FIRE LOWER 4/22/2015 No objection. FRUITA VALLEY 2:10:08 PM JIM DAUGHERTY WATER UTE 4/22/2015 No Objections. 3:22:45 PM Robin Carns MC DEV 4/22/2015 No objections. ENGINEER 5:02:32 PM MC DEV MC DEV 5/6/2015 Is there an easement for access to the Lily Silzell Trust property ENGINEER ENGINEER 4:37:06 PM through the Charles W. Peterson property? If not one should be established and recorded to maintain legal access to the Lily Silzell Trust property. Daniel Sundstrom MC ADDRESSING 5/11/2015 I agree with mcdeveng comment. 7:48:26 AM Jeff Hofman 5/21/2015 The entire Burbank ROW must be included in the vacation request. 10:19:59 AM One-half street ROW vacation requests are no longer accepted.

95 Please provide revised legal description and surveyor's exhibit demonstrating the vacation request.

If the ROW request is approved it will be contingent on the replat (Combining the multiple lots owned by the Silzel Trust and Charles Peterson)into 2 lots so the smaller landlocked lots can not be conveyed separately. The replat can also establish utility and access easements that are required. Kathy Kinsey 6/1/2015 Mr. Fitzpatrick emailed me the revised legal and surveyors exhibit 3:16:45 PM to upload. Uploaded into SAR and informed Jeff Hofman. Jeff Hofman 6/11/2015 County Surveyor approved revised exhibits on 6/2/2015. 3:12:41 PM

96 NO PUBLIC COMMENTS

97 APPLICANT INFORMATION

98 99 EXHIBIT “A”

ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY

A parcel of ground situated in the NE1/4 SE1/4 of Section 33, Township 2 North, Range 3 West of the Ute Meridian lying within Loma Townsite (Reception #78886) being described as follows:

All of that road right-of-way for Burbank Street between the East railroad right-of-way line and the West right-of-way line of Patterson Street as platted on the plat for Loma Townsite (Reception #78886).

TOGETHER WITH all of that 15 foot alley right-of-way lying within Block 26 Loma Townsite (Reception #78886).

Mesa County, Colorado

Authored by: David M. Morris PLS #30111 Q.E.D. Surveying Systems Inc. 1018 Colorado Ave. Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (970)241-2370 6/1/15

100 Right-of-Way Vacation BURBANK STREET D. & R. G. W. RAILROAD R. O. W. SITUATED IN SECTION 33, T2N, R3W OF THE UTE MERIDIAN, MESA COUNTY, COLORADO

LEGEND & NOTES

22 1

21 2 VACATED RIGHT-OF-WAY DESCRIPTION:

20 3 ALLEY B L O C K 26 19 4

18 5

17 6

16 BASIS OF BEARINGS STATEMENT 7

15 8 PATTERSON STREET TELLER STREET

14 9 CERTIFICATION

13 10

12 11

M 1/4 ROAD (A.K.A. OURAY STREET)

Right-of-Way Vacation Surveying Western Colorado Since 1979 Q.E.D. RVEYISU NG SYSTEMS, Inc. 2718 Sierra Vista Rd Grand Junction, CO 81503-2232 (970) 241-2370 Fax: 241-7025 101 RESOLUTION

102

RESOLUTION NO. ______Planning Department No. 2015-0061 VA

APPROVAL OF A VACATION OF THE BURBANK STREET & ADJACENT ALLEY RIGHT OF WAY, LOMA

WHEREAS, Charles W. Peterson and the Lily Silzell Trust, adjacent property owners, requested a Vacation of Right-of-Way described on attached Exhibit "A”, Legal Description and shown on attached Exhibit "B”, Site Map, and

WHEREAS, the staff recommendation was contained in a Project Report dated June 9, 2015; and

WHEREAS, the public hearing before the Mesa County Board of County Commissioners was held on June 23, 2015.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF MESA FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

THAT public notice requirements of Section 3.1.8 of the Mesa County Land Development Code (2000, as amended) have been met; and;

THAT the Right-of-Way Vacation meets the applicable Approval Criteria for Vacations of Rights-of-Way (Section 3.10.6) and General Approval Criteria in Section 3.1.17 of the Mesa County Land Development Code (2000, as amended), including consistency with Intergovernmental Agreements; and

THAT this request is in accordance with the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Mesa County.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN THE COUNTY OF MESA, STATE OF COLORADO:

THAT the vacation of the Burbank Street and adjacent alley right-of-way is approved subject to the following conditions:

1. The vacation is only effective upon the re-plat of the Charles W. Peterson properties and the Lily Silzell Trust properties into a total of two individual lots;

2. The review agency comments shall be addressed through the re-plat process.

Page 1 of 4 103

PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF June, 2015.

______Rose Pugliese, Chair Board of Mesa County Commissioners

ATTEST:

______Sheila Reiner Clerk and Recorder

Page 2 of 4 104 Exhibit A - Legal Description

A parcel of ground situated in the NE1/4 SE1/4 of Section 33, Township 2 North, Range 3 West of the Ute Meridian lying within Loma Townsite (Reception #78886) being described as follows:

All of that road right-of-way for Burbank Street between the East railroad right-of-way line and the West right-of-way line of Patterson Street as platted on the plat for Loma Townsite (Reception #78886). TOGETHER WITH all of that 15 foot alley right-of-way lying within Block 26 Loma Townsite (Reception #78886). Mesa County, Colorado

Page 3 of 4 105 Exhibit B - Site Map

Page 4 of 4 106 PROJECT REVIEW

107

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 June 5, 2015 Updated June 15, 2015 (in italics)

I. 2015-0078 CPA DOUBLE CREEK CONCEPT PLAN APPEAL Property Owner: Design/Engineering LLC Representative: Dave Kotz, SGM Location: 1255 17 ½ Road, Fruita, 81521 (17½ and L½ Roads) Parcel #: 2697-052-00-038 Zoning: URR Planners: Linda Dannenberger, Planning Division Director, (970)244-1771/Christie Barton, (970)255-7191, [email protected] Request: Appeal of an administrative decision to deny the Double Creek Estates Major Subdivision Concept Plan application. Recommendation: Uphold Staff Decision to Deny the Concept Plan Application and Approve the Resolution

Location and Zoning Map:

108

II. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Zoning within the 2,500 foot public notification area:  AFT  Planned Unit Development o Monument Acres (File #C019-90)

Land Uses within the 2,500 foot public notification area:  Residential  Agricultural

Applicable Area Plans  Rural Master Plan o Urban Residential reserve (URR)

III. PROJECT HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION:

History: 2014-0069 CP Double Creek Estates Concept Plan (denied) 2014-0203 RZ Double Creek Rezone (AFT to URR - approved) CE2010-0081 Makeshift bridge in floodplain (closed Code Enforcement case) CE2009 -0167 Waste disposal – tires (open Code Enforcement case) 2008-0408 CP1 Double Creek Estates (withdrawn) 2014-0091 CPA Double Creek Appeal (withdrawn) C217-95 Glassel/Standifird Adjustment of Property Lines

Double Creek Estates is located on the west side of 17½ Road at the L½ Road intersection. Big Salt Wash and an un-named tributary flow through the site. The 100-year Floodplain has been mapped for the project and included on the Concept Plan. The property contains an old landfill leased by Mesa County that was closed January 1, 1985. A previous owner built animal corrals with 40,000 to 50,000 baled tires. The current property owner has used the tires around the property for drainage control, roadways and dams. Tony Piotrowski, Compliance Services Manager for Mesa County, has been working with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to assist Design Engineering, LLC with their applications for two grants – one for the buried tires as a “beneficial use” and the other to remove the tires through the Colorado Waste Tire Program for illegal waste tire stockpiles. It appears that many of the tires have been excavated from the site over the past few weeks. During the workshop with the Planning Commission on June 11, 2015, the applicant’s representative stated that they would withdraw the request for a beneficial use designation and move the buried tires into the stockpile for removal by the illegal waste tire stockpile grant only.

This property was rezoned to Urban Residential Reserve (URR) on March 24, 2015.

2

109

June 9, 2015

The Planning Division issued a decision letter for denial of the Concept Plan on April 10, 2015.

The Bases for Denial of the Concept Plan 1. The application does not meet the Urban Residential Reserve Standards in Section 6.5, Irrigation Standards in Section 7.12.2, Hazard Areas in Section 7.6.1, the Concept Plan Standards in Section 3.6.3.G.1 & 2, and the General Approval Criteria in Section 3.1.17 A & B of the Land Development Code.

Basis #1 is further explained as follows:

 The following requirements for a URR subdivision in Land Development Code Section 6.5.B have not been satisfactorily addressed:

- A minimum of forty percent (40%) of the gross site area shall be retained in a single building lot (the Reserve Lot). The Code does allow a second outlot for the Reserve area if the site has a natural division within it. In this case, the applicant has designated the Outlot where the former Fruita landfill was located as a part of the future building lot. The Colorado Geological Survey comments state that this should not be a building lot. - Drainages, wildlife corridors, floodplain and flood prone areas, streams and other sensitive areas governed by Chapter 7 shall be preserved in outlots. The applicant desires to keep these areas within multiple building lots. - The proportion of sensitive lands contained within the reserve area shall be no greater than that proportion within the entire site. Since the former landfill site is a sensitive area, the proposed Reserve area contains a disproportionally high percentage of sensitive lands for the site.

3

110

 The property is within the Grand Valley Irrigation Company (GVIC) boundaries. Section 7.12.2 of the Code requires the use of irrigation water from the irrigation district if it is available. The applicant proposes using waste irrigation water that they have rights for on site. The water has tested very high in salts and not considered typical levels for irrigation water.

 Section 7.6.1 of the Land Development Code requires mitigation or avoidance of hazards. - The Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) sent in comments concerning wildlife in the wash, and the potential for human-wildlife conflicts to occur. The CPW suggests the residential lots do not extend into the wash, but be part of an outlot. - Tires buried on site have not been removed. These tires may present an impact to site drainage and slope stability. - A redesign of the subdivision is required to remove the lots from the 100-year Floodplain areas.

2. The property owner has an uncorrected Code violation on the subject property involving the unauthorized storage and burial of automobile tires, Code Enforcement Case No. CE2009-0167.

Chapter 11 Violations and Enforcement of the Land Development Code addresses uncorrected violations.

“11.4.1 | Withhold Permits The County may deny or withhold all permits, certificates or other forms of authorization on any land or structure or improvements thereon upon which there is an uncorrected violation of a provision of this Land Development Code, or of a condition or qualification of a permit, certificate, approval or other authorization previously granted by the County, until the violation is corrected. This enforcement provision shall apply regardless of whether the current owner or applicant is responsible for the violation in question.

The County may deny or withhold all permits, certificates or other forms of authorization on any land or structure or improvements owned or being developed by a person who owns, developed or otherwise caused an uncorrected violation of this Land Development Code, until the violation is corrected. This provision shall apply regardless of whether the property for which the permit or other approval is sought is the property in violation.”

Dave Kotz of SGM filed an appeal that is included in this packet. He states the letter is the formal written appeal of the administrative decision issued April 10, 2015. The applicant approved a waiver of the requirement to hold the public hearing within the required 30-day time frame from submittal of the appeal. Staff had not been supplied with any new information supporting the appeal as of June 11, 2015. The applicant hired a new consultant, Keith Ehlers, the week of June 8 who had several discussions with staff during that week. Mr. Ehlers represented the applicant at the Planning Commissioner workshop and submitted a narrative on June 16, 2015.

4

111

Double Creek Estates Concept Plan:

IV. BOARD AUTHORITY 3.6.6 | Appeals A. Appeals of Planning Director’s Decision Appeals of the actions of the Planning Director regarding Major Subdivision Concept Plans and Final Plans may be taken to the Board of County Commissioners by filing an appeal with the Planning Director within thirty (30) days of the Planning Director’s decision on the matters. Appeals will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in a public workshop with comments presented to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners shall consider the appeal as a new matter, and act to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. The required notice and approval criteria shall be the same as required of the original action before the Planning Director; however, evidence shall be weighed independently by the Board. If more than one (1) appeal is filed concerning a single decision, the appeals may be consolidated into a single appeal for review at the discretion of the Board.

V. PUBLIC COMMENTS: One inquiry has been received as of the amended date of this review.

5

112

VI. PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends the Board of County Commissioners uphold the Staff decision to deny the Concept Plan application and approve the resolution.

Bases: No new information has been submitted that would change the bases for the staff decision. Those bases are identified in Double Creek Estates Concept Plan 2014-0069 CP Project Report (excerpted from the Report below):

“The bases for the denial are: 1. The application does not meet the Urban Residential Reserve Standards in Section 6.5, Irrigation Standards in Section 7.12.2, Hazard Areas in Section 7.6.1, the Concept Plan Standards in Section 3.6.3.G.1 & 2, and the General Approval Criteria in Section 3.1.17 A & B of the Land Development Code. 2. The property owner has an uncorrected Code violation on the subject property involving the unauthorized storage and burial of automobile tires, Code Enforcement Case No. CE2009-0167. The County may deny a permit or other form of authorization on any land upon which there is an uncorrected violation of the Land Development Code (see Land Development Code excerpt, Section 11.4.1, below). The Planning Division has determined that the Code violation in Case No. CE2009-0167 should be corrected before further County review or approval of the concept plan (is) occurs.

“11.4.1 | Withhold Permits The County may deny or withhold all permits, certificates or other forms of authorization on any land or structure or improvements thereon upon which there is an uncorrected violation of a provision of this Land Development Code, or of a condition or qualification of a permit, certificate, approval or other authorization previously granted by the County, until the violation is corrected. This enforcement provision shall apply regardless of whether the current owner or applicant is responsible for the violation in question.

The County may deny or withhold all permits, certificates or other forms of authorization on any land or structure or improvements owned or being developed by a person who owns, developed or otherwise caused an uncorrected violation of this Land Development Code, until the violation is corrected. This provision shall apply regardless of whether the property for which the permit or other approval is sought is the property in violation.’”

VII. MCPC WORKSHOP: (6/11/15): Unanimous decision to deny the appeal and uphold staff’s decision (9-0).

VIII. BOCC ACTION: (6/23/2015):

6

113

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 • Dept. 5022 • P.O. Box 20,000 • Grand Junction, Colorado 81502-5001 Ph (970) 244-1636 Fax (970) 244-1769

CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW April 10, 2015

2014-0069 CP DOUBLE CREEK ESTATES CONCEPT PLAN Property Owner: Design/Engineering, LLC Representative: Dave Kotz, SGM Location: 1255 17½ Road, Fruita, 81521 (L½ & 17½ Roads) Parcel #: 2697-052-00-038 Zoning: AFT Planner: Christie Barton, 255-7191, [email protected] Request: Subdivide a 54.9 acre parcel into 16 lots in two phases: Phase 1 will have 11 lots ranging in size from 1.1 acres to 2.0 acres, and Phase 2 will have 5 lots ranging in size from 1.4 acres to 4.0 acres. Two outlots totaling 23.5 acres are also included. Access will be from two cul-de-sacs off 17½ Road. A rezone to Urban Residential reserve (URR) is being reviewed separately. Staff Recommendation to Planning Division Director: Denial

Location and Zoning Map:

1

114

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The site is located at the west side of 17½ Road at L½ Road. L½ Road will be extended into the site to access the lots, but will not cross Big Salt Wash. The lot is approximately 54.3 acres, and is currently vacant. This proposal is to create sixteen (16) lots and two outlots in two phases. Access for the lots will be from two cul-de-sacs off 17½ Road.

The property contains 13.96 acres of a previous landfill that Mesa County operated and closed in 1985. This was a lease with the property owners at the time. The applicant has conducted Environmental Phase II testing on the property. This is included in the binder materials.

The property is currently in a concurrent rezone process from AFT to Urban Residential Reserve (URR) that goes to public hearing with the Board of County Commissioners on March 24th. This application will not be approved until after a rezone is approved. The URR standards require 40% of the property to be set aside for future development when sanitary sewer is available, but Mesa County Planning Division has made an exception due to the presence of the old landfill, and is not requiring re-development on the set-aside area.

The reserve lots contain the old landfill and Big Salt Wash. Further discussion in the attached checklist addresses re-design of the lot configuration to allow 1) the wash to be owned by the HOA so that drainage and trail easements can be located there, and 2) the existing access into the wash area is between two lots instead of being cut off from the cul-de-sac and public access. This location can also serve as a drainage easement. The applicant has stated that the future ownership of the old landfill has not been determined.

Previous hay production occurred on the southern field with Grand Valley Irrigation Company (GVIC) water, but the owner has filed on the tailwater in the tributary to Big Salt Wash for irrigation water. Section 7.12.2 requires new development within an irrigation district use the irrigation water. This would apply to the south field. Testimony during the Neighborhood Meeting stated the applicant had used GVIC irrigation water but had not had the shares assigned to the headgate. Additional testimony stated the use of the tailwater from the tributary with the high salt content would increase the amount of alkali occurring on the site. Please see the attached checklist for more information. The applicant provided a surface water testing summary that documented the salt content.

The site has a large number of baled and individual tires that were on the property when the application acquired it. The applicant has been placing tires in various locations, including Big Salt Wash and the tributary to the wash. A driveway within the 100-year Floodplain of Big Salt Wash is made of baled tires and covered with dirt. This movement of the tires bales has been the subject of Army Corps of Engineers, CDPHE – Solid Waste Unit, and Mesa County Code Enforcement Notice of Violation investigations. Section 11.4 of the Land Development Code allows an application process to work toward compliance. The applicant is requesting approval to bury the tires on-site; however, this process would include approval by the CDPHE – Solid Waste Unit, a Conditional Use Permit for solid waste disposal and Certificate of Designation approval from Mesa County Commissioners. The subdivision will not be approved until the tire issue has been resolved.

2

115

The Rural Planning Area of the Mesa County Master Plan designates this area as Urban Residential Reserve (URR) and this development uses the URR regulations in Section 6.5 of the Land Development Code to achieve the proposed density.

PROJECT HISTORY: 2014-0203 RZ Double Creek Rezone (AFT to URR) 2008-0408 CP1 Double Creek Estates (withdrawn) 2014-0091 CPA Double Creek Appeal (withdrawn) C217-95 Glassel/Standifird Adjustment of Property Lines

Attached: Concept Plan Checklist

3

116 MAJOR SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST – Double Creek Estates Concept Plan 2014-0069 CP SECTION 3.6 April 10, 2015

Applicability Y/N/can be Comments/Issues 3.6.1 met/NA A. Does not qualify for other Y This application does not qualify for an administrative administrative review review as a Simple Land Division because the application. application is to create 16 lots in two phases, plus two B. Previously a Minor outlots. Subdivision, Simple Land Division or Agricultural Land Division. C. Previously created through the major subdivision process or any process prior to May 1, 2000. General Meeting Y/N/can be Comments/Issues 3.6.2 met/NA 1. General Meeting and follow-up Y A General meeting was held on September 30, 2013. pre-application meeting have A Concept Plan packet was included with the General been held. Meeting Notes in lieu of a follow-up pre-application meeting. 2. Concept Plan submitted less Y The Concept Plan was submitted a number of times than 180 days from the date of and made complete on December 19, 2014. The 2013 the General Plan Meeting or an General Meeting date was allowed for the submittals extension of 180 days was as the representative was working toward making the approved by the Planning application complete. Director. Concept Plan Y/N/can be Comments/Issues 3.6.3 met/NA B. Neighborhood Meeting has Y A neighborhood meeting was held on March 3, 2015 been held and a written at 5:30 p.m. narrative has been submitted for staff review. A narrative from the applicant is attached.

D. Phasing Plan and Schedule Y The project will be completed in a two phases. have been submitted for staff review. E. Planning Commission has Y The Planning Commission reviewed the application at reviewed the application after a workshop session at their meeting on March 12, the neighborhood meeting. 2015. Recommendations for amendments to the Concept Plan have been taken from the minutes.

Page 1 of 11

117 Concept Plan Y/N/can be Comments/Issues Approval Criteria met/NA 3.6.3.G 1. Facilities and services N Rural facilities and services are available. The available; maintaining “Has not subdivision will be served by On-site Wastewater adequate levels of service been met” Treatment Systems (OWTS). Testing results for (sewage, waste disposal, lots less than two acres in size have been submitted irrigation and domestic water, and reviewed by Mesa County Engineering gas, electricity, police, fire Division/Health. protection, roads and The applicant filed for water rights out of Big Salt transportation). Wash and received the Water Court Decree on December 29, 2014 (attached to packet). The Decree has permanent water rights and conditional water rights. The conditional water rights affect Phase II and can be requested to be changed to permanent water rights once the irrigation facilities are installed. The irrigation facilities shall be required to be installed as part of the subdivision improvements in the Development Improvement Agreement (DIA) for Phase II, and the filing for the permanent water rights completed so that the homeowners don’t lose the irrigation rights. This would be a condition of approval. The filing must be completed within six years. The property is within the Grand Valley Irrigation Company (GVIC) boundaries. Section 7.12.2 requires the use of irrigation water from the irrigation district if it is available, which it is. The Ute Water Conservancy District provides domestic water. Ute Water has a tiered billing system to charge higher prices if people use more water, which would occur if residents use domestic water to irrigate their lawns due to the high salt content. Section 7.12.2 is not met for Phase 1. Grand Valley Rural Power provides electric service to the area. The Mesa County Sheriff and the Lower Valley Fire Protection District provide emergency services. Access for the lots will be from two new cul-de- sacs off 17½ Road, one for each phase of the subdivision. A NOI (Notice of Intent) to Permit an Access has been issued for the project. Mesa County Engineering is investigating the sight distance at the intersection of 17½ and L½ Roads. It was determined that the sight distance is deemed sufficient for the new subdivision entrance once the

Page 2 of 11

118 dirt berm is removed. The speed limit on 17½ Road is 45 mph. 2. No adverse impacts on the N The Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) has potential natural environment (air, concerns for the subdivision. The old solid waste water, noise, stormwater “Has not landfill should be designated as an outlot, and management, wildlife and through a plat note, as non-buildable or non- vegetation). been met” developable. The Big Salt Wash and tributary drainage require building envelopes for Lots 5-9 and 11-16. The geotechnical report by Huddleston Berry dated October 13, 2014 recommends 75 feet from the crest of the ravine slopes for residential structures. The same Huddleston-Berry report does not include a recommendation for the proposed On- site Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS) although the OWTS are mapped at 50’ from crest of ravine slopes. If Huddleston-Berry states this setback is acceptable for the site, a note on the Site Plan would be required for the setbacks on Lots 5-9 and 11-16. Hazard Areas in Section 7.6.1 of the Land Development Code requires mitigation or avoidance of hazards. This can be met with a redesign of the subdivision to remove the lots from the 100-year Floodplain areas. The property has expansive, collapsible and corrosive soils. Additionally, the property may have shallow groundwater and/or perched water. The CGS recommends that lot-specific geotechnical testing be done to characterize soil engineering properties to determine subgrade preparation, and foundation, floor system and pavement designs. A final drainage report will be required at the Final Plan phase of the project. The applicant’s engineer has submitted locations for stormwater detention basins. Final review will occur during the Final Plan application process. The Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) sent in comments concerning wildlife in the wash, and the potential for human-wildlife conflicts to occur. The CPW suggests the residential lots do not extend into the wash, but be part of an outlot. Tires buried on site have not been removed. These tires may present an impact to site drainage and slope stability. Section 11.4 allows Mesa County to withhold approvals until violations are corrected. This has not been met. 3. Will not impede development Y The subdivision will not impede future Page 3 of 11

119 of surrounding land as shown development of surrounding land. in County Master Plan. 4. Subdivision is not Y This property will have houses on small lots in an significantly different from area that is urbanizing over time. The Master Plan surrounding and nearby land designates this property and the surrounding land as uses or allowed uses (traffic, “Urban Residential Reserve (URR)”. The applicant noise, odor, dust, and other received rezone approval from the County external impacts). Commissioners on March 24, 2015. 5. If located within the Rural Y The property is located within the Rural Planning Planning Area, does not result Area and a portion of the property can be farmed. in the division of, or hinder, The site contains approximately 50% prime soils. conservation of prime or unique agricultural land. 6. If located within or adjacent Can be met The property is located within the Rural Planning to the Rural Planning Area, Area. The Right to Farm and Ranch Policy will includes a site plan and plat need to be on the site plan and plat at the Final Plan note reciting County’s Right phase of the process. to Farm and Ranch Policy. General Approval Criteria Y/N/can be Comments/Issues 3.1.17 met/NA A. Complies with applicable N This application does not meet the Urban standards, provisions and “Has not Residential Reserve Standards in Section 6.5, purposes of code. been met” Section 3.6.3.G.1 & 2, Section 3.1.17 A & B and Section 11.4 (uncorrected Code violation). B. Consistent with review agency N This application has gone through one round of comments “Has not review and was submitted to 17 review agencies. been met” Comments are attached. This property has an uncorrected Code violation. C. Consistent with IGAs Y Notice was sent to the Army Corps of Engineers and CDPHE/Solid Waste section, and both agencies have participated in the compliance process. Notice was also sent to the City of Fruita as the project is within the Three-Mile-Area-of- Influence and comments have been received concerning an easement for a future trail along the wash. Section 6 Density & Y/N/can be Dimensional Standards met/NA Min. Lot Size Can be met The minimum size lot in the URR district is 1.0 acre in size, in accordance with Section 7.10 of the Land Development Code. Min. Lot Width Can be met Each lot can meet the minimum lot width of 100 feet.

Density Can be met The subdivision cannot exceed the maximum density of 1 unit per 2 acre average density. Page 4 of 11

120 Setbacks Can be met The property is currently vacant. Future structures can meet the required setbacks. Frontage Can be met All lots can meet the minimum 50’ frontage. Max. Lot Coverage Can be met The URR zoning district has a 50% maximum lot coverage requirement, and this requirement can be met when structures are built.

Section 7 Development Y/N/can be Standards met/NA Parking (Sec. 7.1) Y The lots are sufficient in size to provide sufficient parking areas. Landscaping (7.2) N/A No landscaping is required in the rural areas. Buffer (7.2.3) N/A No buffers are required for this project. Open Space (7.5) (7.5.2) N/A Open Space is not required for this project. Hazard Areas (7.6.1) N According to the Hazard Investigation, the site does “Has not not have hazards that would preclude development. been met” The Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) Report recommends 1) that Outlot A be specifically identified as non-buildable or non-developable due to debris and uncontrolled fill are not suitable bearing materials for any structure or improvements; 2) the site is has the potential for collapsible, expansive, and corrosive soils, and may have groundwater or perched water at shallow depths; and 3) setbacks from drainage channels, steep slopes and erosion be a minimum of 30 feet from slope crests. However, the Huddleston-Berry 10-13-2014 Geologic Hazards and Geotechnical Investigation recommends that residential structures be set-back a minimum of 75 feet from the crest of the ravine slopes. The Concept Plan shows building envelopes for Lots 5-9 and 11-16 as having 75-foot setbacks from crest of slope. The On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS) are shown as having a 50-foot setback from the crest of ravine slopes. This has not been addressed in the Huddleston-Berry 10-13-2014 Geologic Hazards and Geotechnical Investigation, which is required for the project. The area from the crest of slope shall be labeled as a No Fill/No Build/No Disturbance area. Steep slopes (7.6.2) Can be met While the Mesa County computer mapping does not show slopes of 25% or more on this property, the banks of Big Salt Wash qualify as steep slopes. Building envelopes would be required to be added to the Site Plan at the Final Plan phase for Lots 5-9 Page 5 of 11

121 and 11-16. Wildfire (7.6.3) N/A The area is not identified as a wildfire area. Wildlife Protection (7.6.4) Can be met The property is located within an area depicted by the 1995 Wildlife Composite Map for Mesa County as being within an area of very high wildlife impact along Big Salt Wash. Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) submitted comments that Big Salt Wash is an important wildlife habitat. Fences and pets-at- large are wildlife hazards. By removing the proposed private property lines within Big Salt Wash, the potential for disturbances between humans and wildlife can be reduced. Property owners often build fences along property lines, and this will impact wildlife, impact maintenance for the drainage, and impact public trail use. CPW has fence designs that prevent wildlife entanglement. Pets are not to be allowed to run free within the riparian (stream) area and roofed pens for pets that spend extended periods of time outdoors. These would be requirements for a note on the Site Plan and in the covenants at the Final Plan phase of the project. Ridge Lines (7.6.5) N/A The site is not affected by ridgelines. Grading (7.6.6) Can be met Grading has been done on the site to plant alfalfa. A Final Drainage Plan would be submitted at the Final Plan phase of the project. Night Light (7.6.7) Can be met All future development must comply with Section 7.6.7 to limit nighttime light pollution. Domestic Livestock Separation N/A The lots are not located in close proximity to (7.6.8) existing pens, fenced corrals buildings or other confined areas keeping domestic livestock. Right to Hunt Note (7.6.9) N/A The property is not located in an area that is traditionally hunted. Potable Water Supply (7.8) Y The property is served by Ute Water. o Public Located in Fire District (7.9) Y The property is served by the Lower Valley Fire District. Wastewater (7.10) Can be met Each lot will be served by On-site Wastewater o Septic Treatment Systems (OWTS). Testing has been o Septic site plan for lots submitted for creating lots less than two acres in less than 2 acres size. A septic site plan has also been submitted. OWTS permits are required at time of house construction. Irrigation (7.12) N A portion of this property is within the Grand “Has not Valley Irrigation Company district. Section 7.12.2 been met” of the Land Development Code states, ‘New Page 6 of 11

122 development shall be required to use irrigation water for irrigation purposes wherever irrigation water is physically and legally available, rather than use potable domestic water.’ During the Rezone public hearing and the Neighborhood Meeting, neighbors stated that the southern field has been irrigated with Grand Valley Irrigation Company (GVIC) water. While the applicant has obtained a decree from the water court to use tributary water, the water sample showed high levels of salts in the water. This area should continue to be irrigated with irrigation water supplied by GVIC. The water from the tributary may be used for the northern house lots that are out of the irrigation water area. This water has conditional rights associated with it, and to obtain permanent rights, the irrigation infrastructure must be installed. When Phase 2 would be platted, the Development Improvement Agreement (DIA) will need to include the irrigation infrastructure, and the plat would not be recorded before the permanent water rights are secured. Floodplains (7.13) Can be met The site has no mapped FEMA floodplains; however the applicant has conducted a Floodplain Study and mapped the 100-year floodplain along Big Salt Wash and along the tributary that feeds into the wash. This would be labeled as a No Fill/No Build/No Disturbance area. Access (7.15) Can be met The project has been issued a Notice of Intent o New road construction (NOI) to Permit an Access. Two cul-de-sacs are o Individual driveways proposed, with individual driveways constructed off the cul-de-sacs. The sight distance can be determined sufficient for the new subdivision entrance once the engineered plans are accepted and the dirt berm is removed. Section 6.5 URR Y/N/can be Subdivision Standards met/NA A. The lot or parcel must be a Y The property is approximately 54.3 acres. minimum of 10 acres B. A minimum of 40% of the N This subdivision shall be re-designed to meet this gross site area shall be retained in “Has not section of the Code. a single building lot (the Reserve been met” Lot). C. The maximum allowed N The property is approximately 54.3 acres and 16 subdivision density is 2 acres/d.u. “Has not lots are proposed (in two phases). The number of been met” lots allowed shall be reviewed in conformance with Page 7 of 11

123 subsection B & H of these regulations. D. Land in agricultural N The proposed lots are located in the area that has production shall be located in the “Has not been traditionally farmed. This criterion can be met Reserve Lot(s) to the greatest been met” with a redesign that creates lots on the non- extent possible. productive soils, and the area that has been traditionally farmed constitutes the Reserve Lot. OR A request for an exception can be submitted to determine if the agricultural lands are allowed to be developed as the property has a large amount of sensitive lands. E. If easements are necessary for N/A Easements for future sewer connection are not a future sewer location, it shall be required at this time. designated on the plat. F. Trail easements/outlots shall be Can be met A trail easement along Big Salt Wash shall be provided for public use in added to the Plat and Site Plan at the Final Plan accordance with trails plans phase. Wording for the easement will be provided adopted by either the nearby to the applicant. The trail does not need to be built, municipality or by Mesa County and it may be managed in the future by the City of Fruita. Additionally, Lots 14, 15 & 16 shall be redesigned to have the drainage easement along the existing path into the wash and pedestrians can use the future trail system along the wash with public access along a County maintained road in public right of way. G. Appropriate right-of-way will Can be met Right of way is not required to be dedicated at this be required to be dedicated time as the Rural Road Circulation Plan does not through the Reserve Lot to the require a future road to be built across the Big Salt property line abutting adjacent Wash. property to implement the The City of Fruita’s POST Open Space and adopted Transportation Plan or to Transportation Plan shows trails along the Big Salt provide a road network for access Wash. Big Salt Wash shall be labeled as a to adjacent properties. pedestrian easement (in addition to a drainage easement) for future trails to be built by the City of Fruita (wording will be supplied to the applicant). These are labeled as accessing the 18 Road Mountain Bike area, and a trail of regional significance. Use of a trail will also take pressure off 17½ Road that currently receives heavy use of cars and bikes. H. Sensitive areas shall be N The subdivision contains approximately 11 acres of preserved in outlot(s). The “Has not sensitive lands (Big Salt Wash and the 100-year proportion of sensitive lands been met” Floodplain), 13.96 acres that contains the old contained within the reserve area landfill (according to a historic survey), and shall be no greater than the approximately 25 acres of buildable land proportion of sensitive lands (approximately 2 acres of the buildable land is on Page 8 of 11

124 within the overall application site. the west side of Big Salt Wash and has no access to the rest of the subdivision). Approximately 2.6 acres will be dedicated for rights of way for the subdivision roads. Sensitive lands account for approximately 20% of the land total for this site. The proportionality requirement shall be reviewed. The property is 54.3 acres, with 23.6 acres in outlots. This leaves 30.7 acres. The URR zoning district has a 2 acre average density and 15 lots can be created. A portion of Outlot B is buildable property, but it has no access to it unless a road is constructed (with a bridge or culvert) across Big Salt Wash. The applicant has agreed to place that property in an outlot with the potential of selling it to the adjacent property owner. The subdivision needs to be redesigned to avoid lots extending into the riparian area along Big Salt Wash, and to include these sensitive areas in an outlot. Additionally, Lots 14, 15 & 16 need to be redesigned so that public access into the wash can be located along the property lines. It is now shown as part of one lot, with the access drive made with buried tires in another lot. The owners of Lot 15 can access part of the wash, but would be trespassing on Lot 14 if they walked on the access drive made from buried tires. The City of Fruita has requested an easement for future trail use, and a re- design would accommodate the public without creating trespass situations for property owners. The trail area will be dedicated to the public. A tributary to Big Salt Wash flows through the property and this feature will be used as property boundaries for the adjacent lots. This is mapped as part of the 100-year Floodplain and minimum setbacks would need to be determined by Huddleston-Berry. I. A site plan shall be provided to N The project shall be re-designed to show options for show options for access, utility “Has not re-development in the future, with a review of the corridors and circulation for been met” regulations of this section. future redevelopment of the Reserve Lot J. Stormwater detention/retention Can be met A Final Drainage Plan shall be submitted as part of areas shall be designed to be a the Final Plan application. The Big Salt Wash shall landscaped amenity, and be labeled as a drainage and pedestrian easement landscape plans shall be for maintenance and pedestrian trail use. submitted for review and approval, and construction by the Page 9 of 11

125 developer. If the drainage area is to be common area useful for recreation, it may be counted as part of the Reserve lot, provided owners of the Reserve lot and owners of the re-subdivided Reserve lot will have access to it.

K. Provisions for weed control on Can be met Provisions for noxious weed control shall be added outlots and common areas shall to the covenants. Wording will be supplied to the be proposed in the Concept Plan applicant for the Final Plan application. phase of review and approved by the Mesa County Weed and Pest Inspector. L. An irrigation plan will be N Compliance with Section 7.12.2 of the Land provided that addresses “Has not Development Code is required. construction and maintenance of been met” supply and tail water ditches. Section 11.4 Remedies and Y/N/can be Enforcement Powers met/NA The County shall have the N This property has a large number of baled and following remedies and “Has not individual tires on it. The property was acquired enforcement powers: been met” with tires used as corrals, but the current property 11.4.1 | Withhold Permits owner has placed the tires in the wash and the The County may deny or tributary to the wash, buried tires, and used tires in withhold all permits, certificates drainage areas. This project shall not move forward or other forms of authorization on until the uncorrected Code violation (involving the any land or structure or unauthorized storage and burial of automobile tires, improvements thereon upon Code Enforcement Case No. CE2009-0167) is which there is an uncorrected corrected. violation of a provision of this Land Development Code, or of a condition or qualification of a permit, certificate, approval or other authorization previously granted by the County, until the violation is corrected. This enforcement provision shall apply regardless of whether the current owner or applicant is responsible for the violation in question. The County may deny or withhold all permits, certificates or other forms of authorization on any land or structure or improvements owned or being developed by a person who owns, Page 10 of 11

126 developed or otherwise caused an uncorrected violation of this Land Development Code, until the violation is corrected. This provision shall apply regardless of whether the property for which the permit or other approval is sought is the property in violation.

PROJECT DECISION: The Planning Division Denies Double Creek Estates file 2014-0069 CP.

The basis for the denial is: 1. The application does not meet the Urban Residential Reserve Standards in Section 6.5, Irrigation Standards in Section 7.12.2, Hazard Areas in Section 7.6.1, the Concept Plan Standards in Section 3.6.3.G.1 & 2, and the General Approval Criteria in Section 3.1.17 A & B of the Land Development Code. 2. The property owner has an uncorrected Code violation on the subject property involving the unauthorized storage and burial of automobile tires, Code Enforcement Case No. CE2009- 0167. The County may deny a permit or other form of authorization on any land upon which there is an uncorrected violation of the Land Development Code (see Land Development Code excerpt, Section 11.4.1, below). The Planning Division has determined that the Code violation in Case No. CE2009-0167 should be corrected before further County review or approval of the concept plan is occurs.

“11.4.1 | Withhold Permits The County may deny or withhold all permits, certificates or other forms of authorization on any land or structure or improvements thereon upon which there is an uncorrected violation of a provision of this Land Development Code, or of a condition or qualification of a permit, certificate, approval or other authorization previously granted by the County, until the violation is corrected. This enforcement provision shall apply regardless of whether the current owner or applicant is responsible for the violation in question.

The County may deny or withhold all permits, certificates or other forms of authorization on any land or structure or improvements owned or being developed by a person who owns, developed or otherwise caused an uncorrected violation of this Land Development Code, until the violation is corrected. This provision shall apply regardless of whether the property for which the permit or other approval is sought is the property in violation.”

Page 11 of 11

127 128 CODE ENFORCEMENT Opened 8/18/2009 ACTIVITY LOG Closed Case Number CE2009-0167

Case Name Complaint Type Status Code Officer DESIGN/ENGINEERING LLC WASTE DISPOSAL NON-COMPLIANCE T. PIOTROWSKI Site Address City, State Zip Tax Parcel # Zone District Parcel Size 1255 17 1/2 RDFRUITA, CO 81521 2697-052-00-038 AFT 54.911 Description of Complaint (TH) Old tire storage on top of hay bales DATE TYPE OF ACTIVITY & REPORT ACTION BY 5/21/2015 TELEPHONE CALL T. PIOTROWSKI On 5/21/15, I (Tony Piotrowski) placed a telephone call (303-692-2097) to Brian Gaboriau, Waste Tire Grants Administrator, Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment to discuss the current situation between Design Engineering and a possible waste tire grant.

Brian advised me that since my submittal of the "Illegal Waste Tire Stockpile Identification Form" he has had discussions with Dave Kotz, SGM, engineer for Design Engineering concerning possible grant money to remove loose tires from the site at 1255 17 1/2 Road. Brian states that his office is waiting on the review of a Beneficial Use request that Design Engineering submitted for the road/driveway that leads down to the wash to be completed. Once the Beneficial Use review is completed Brian will make a decision on the Grant request, Brian wants to know the magnitude of the entire project before moving forward with Grant monies and contractors.

Brian also indicated that the Beneficial Use request is being reviewed by David Snapp of CDPHE. 4/1/2015 MEDIA INQUIRY COURTNEY CAM Newspaper Article has been attached to this casefile in TRAKiT.

11/13/2014 MISCELLANEOUS COURTNEY CAM I (Courtney Campbell) received a letter from David Snapp with the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment dated 10-30-14, in response to "Additional information needed for the Division to issue a Regulatory Determination for the Proposed Use of Waste Tire Bales at 1255 17 1/2 Road in Fruita, CO".

A copy of the letter is attached to this case file, the two original copies that were received were given to Tony Piotrowski and Christie Barton. 6/26/2013 TELEPHONE CALL TRUDY BROWN (6/26/2013 12:07:02 PM TB) I (Trudy Brown) received two voice mail messages and returned a call to John Nelson regarding tires being moved around the property and into low lying ditch type areas. He is concerned that they may be attempting to bury them.

I have attached copies of the voice messages to this case file and notified Tony Piotrowski of the conversation. 4/18/2012 E-MAIL T. PIOTROWSKI On 04/18/12, I (Tony Piotrowski) sent an email to Mr. Kuechler advising him that Code Compliance Services was moving forward with legal action, but that there maybe some options to discuss prior to that action taking place 1/31/2012 OFFICE VISIT T. PIOTROWSKI On 01/31/12, Jeff Emmons (248-7168) from the Colorado Dept of Health stopped into MCCS to 129 Activity Log for: CE2009-0167 Page 1 of 5 Print Date: 6/16/2015 obtained CCS's NOV for Design Engineering as his office has been tasked with following up on a complaint from Ed Kuechler about any illegal landfill as a result of Mesa County activity in 1985. 12/8/2011 OTHER T. HAYWARD I (Tere Hayward) received a letter via U.S. Mail for CCS Director Tony Piotrowski from Design/Engineering (Edward Kuechler). In the letter Mr. Kuechler is asking to rescind the Notice of Violation that was issued to him. Per Tony request the letter was sent via email to Donna Ross, Regional and Shard Services Director, to kept her updated. 12/5/2011 RECEIPT OF SIGNED CARD T. HAYWARD I (Tere Hayward) received receipt of signed card for an NOV notice sent to: Design/Engineering, LLC Edward A. Kuechler, Registered Agent, Manger &/or Member, Mary Lou Kennedy, Manager &/or Member 1912 Monument Canyon Drive Grand Junction, CO 81407-9527. The card had the signature of Mary Lou Kennedy. 12/5/2011 E-MAIL T. HAYWARD Per Tony Piotrowski, CCS Director, request, I (Tere Hayward) sent a copy of the NOV to Carrie A. Sheata, Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Colorado West Regulatory Branch. The NOV was sent via email at [email protected]. 12/5/2011 OTHER T. HAYWARD I (Tere Hayward) received a letter for Tony Piotrowski, CCS Director, the letter is from Dept. of the Army - U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento - Corps of Engineers - Susan Bachini Nall, Chief, Colorado West Regulatory Branch. The letter is addressed to Ed Kuechler, Design/Engineering, LLC., concerning the discharged dredged or fill material into Big Salt Wash. 11/29/2011 NOTICE SENT BY US MAIL T. HAYWARD I (Tere Hayward) sent an NOV notice per CCS Director Tony Piotrowski request to: Design/Engineering, LLC Edward A. Kuechler,Registered Agent, Manger &/or Member, Mary Lou Kennedy, Manager &/or Member 1912 Monument Canyon Drive Grand Junction, CO 81407-9527. 11/29/2011 NOV ISSUED T. PIOTROWSKI On 11/29/11, I (Tony Piotrowski) issued a 60 day NOV to Design Engineering and Ed Kuechler asking to correct the tire violation by securing permits or by removal or any combination of the same. I gave the NOV and attachments to Tere for delivery via US mail and Certified Mail 11/9/2011 TELEPHONE CALL T. PIOTROWSKI On 11/9/11, I (Tony Piotrowski) contacted by telephone Carrie Sheata from Army Corps of Engineering to discuss her recent site visit to the Kuechler property located west of 17 1/2 Road and L Road. Carrie advised me that her agency will most likely be senting a notice to Mr. Kuechler and Design Engineering addressing both the flood water issues and the homemade bridge that is at the water's edge. 10/20/2011 FOLLOW UP SITE VISIT T. PIOTROWSKI On 10/20/11, Officer TJ Rix and I (Tony Piotrowski) conducted a site visit to the Kuechler property located at 1255 17 1/2 Road, we accessed the property by gaining permission from William Sommerville, the neighboring property to the west of the Kuechler property.

Once on site we observed that tire bales remained on site includinh the tire bales near the wash, bales in the drainage creases above the wash and bales of tires stacked on the ground near the intersection of 17 1/2 Road and L Road. In additionto the bales of tires we also observed what appeared to be the steel framework of a trailer near the bank of the wash, perhaps intended for use as a bridge over the wash.

130 Activity Log for: CE2009-0167 Page 2 of 5 Print Date: 6/16/2015 9/21/2011 E-MAIL T. HAYWARD I (Tere Hayward) was copied on an email from Donna Ross that she received from Planner Christie Barton, in the email Christie writes "I received a letter from the Army Corps (attached) about the trailer across Big Salt Wash at the Kuechler property. In talking to Carrie Sheata, it seems that not all the information was included in the letter, as part of the problem was that Mr. Kuechler has been using tires to filling in the drainages on the site. This is the second time in a week I have contacted her with an applicant giving her incomplete information. Carrie asked if we had pictures. The only ones I had were attached to the NOV and our files are at the Attorney's Office. Can you send her pictures, Tony? Thanks. Christie 7/20/2011 E-MAIL T. HAYWARD I (Tere Hayward) was copied on an email and requested by Donna Ross to make an activity log entry. The email was sent to CCS Director Tony Piotrowski, Lyle Dechant, the County Attorney writes "Alan has advised me today that Judge Bottger has dismissed the Kuechler litigation based on our motions to dismiss and he has awarded our costs and fees. The award of costs and fees is based on 13-17-201, C.R.S.. I suppose that Mr. Kuchler might try to appeal the decision and award of costs and fees, but it is very doubtful he would be successful and he would simply be throwing away more of his money. Alan is assembling our costs and our fees to certify them to Judge Bottger. Alan says our attorney's fees are about $6,000 and our costs are several hundred. Jean can confirm that. By letter, a copy of which is attached for your reference, Alan carefully advised Mr. Kuchler that we felt his case was groundless and invited him to dismiss it voluntarily before we spent money to complete and file our motions to dismiss. At that point, each party would have born its own costs and fees. Mr. Kuechler was specifically advised about what the basis for our motions would be and that the statute required that the court assess costs and fees if our motions were granted. Mr. Kuechler did not voluntarily dismiss the case and he did not even reply to Alan's letter. Unless otherwise directed, we will be pursuing and collecting our costs and fees from Mr. Kuechler. Alan, if I have misstated anything or if you want to jump in and add anything, please do so. Thanks and congratulations on a job very well done! Donna and Tony- Will you please brief David and me on the status of the code compliance matter when you have a few minutes. Linda and Christie- will you please brief David and me on the status of the subdivision application at the next planner - attorney meeting. Thanks, everyone. You have done a great job on this so far. 4/21/2011 DEPT DIRECTOR INQUIRY T. PIOTROWSKI Director Donna Ross asked me (Tony Piotrowski) to extend the follow up date on this case file to allow the Attorney's Office time to respond to Mr. Kluchers request 1/4/2011 DEPT DIRECTOR INQUIRY T. PIOTROWSKI On 01/04/11, Director Donna Ross asked that this case file's follow up date be extended to March 14, 2011 to allow time for her to review if waste tire grants are available with the State of Colorado. 10/15/2010 RECEIPT OF SIGNED CARD T. HAYWARD I (Tere Hayward) received return receipt signature card for NOV and Cease and Desist Order notice sent via U.S. 1st Class certified mail to Edward Kuchler and Mary Lou Kennedy at 1912 Monument Canyon Drive, Grand Junction, Co 81507-9527. The signature on the card is Mary Lou Kennedy. 10/13/2010 OTHER T. HAYWARD I (Tere Hayward) sent a copy of the Notice of Violation and Cease and Desist Order, to Robert J. Peterson, Environmental Protection Specialist - Solid Waste and Material Management Unit - Solid and Hazardous Waste Program - State of Colorado. Per Senior CE Officer Tony Piotrowski request. 10/12/2010 OTHER

131 Activity Log for: CE2009-0167 Page 3 of 5 Print Date: 6/16/2015 T. HAYWARD I (Tere Hayward) received a letter addressed to CE Officer Tony Piotrowski, from Robert J. Peterson Environmental Protection Specialist - Solid Waste and Material Management Unit - Solid and Hazardous Waste Program - State of Colorado. The letter was addresse to property owner Ed Keuchler, it addresses the issue of the Tire Bales at the property and a request for Beneficial Use Request. I scan the letter and added it to the electronic file. 10/11/2010 NOV ISSUED T. PIOTROWSKI On 10/11/10, I (Tony piotrowski) issued a Notice of Violation and a Cease and Desist order to Design Engineering LLC for operating a Solid Waste Disposal Site. The notice and it's attachment were sent via certified and regular mail by Tere Hayward 8/16/2010 FOLLOW UP SITE VISIT T. PIOTROWSKI

8/11/2010 TELEPHONE CALL T. PIOTROWSKI On 08/11/10 at approximately 9 am, I contacted Mr. Kuechler and we agreed to meet at 1255 17 1/2 Road on Monday 08/16/10 at 9 am to view the site. 7/27/2010 TELEPHONE CALL T. PIOTROWSKI On 07/27/10, I left a voice message with Mr. Kuechler asking him to contact me so that we could set a meeting at 1255 17 1/2 Road 7/20/2010 FOLLOW UP SITE VISIT T. PIOTROWSKI On 07/20/10 at approximately 8 am, I (Tony Piotrowski) drove out to 1255 17 1/2 Road to meet with Ed Kuechler, the Register Agent for the property owner, Design Engineering. Once on site I waited approximately 45 minutes at the front gate for Mr. Kuechler, but he didn't show up during that time, I also placed a cellphone call to him and left a message with him. After I left the property I did receive a telephone call from Mr. Kuechler and he explained he was out of town and would be unable to me with me. He did say I could call him next week and he may be able to meet with me at that time. 6/23/2010 MEETING WITH T. HAYWARD I (Tere Hayward) was advised by Vicki Audino that a General Meeting has been scheduled for July 12, 2010 at 2:00 p.m.. The meeting is scheduled with Senior Planner Christie Barton. 5/28/2010 OFFICE VISIT T. HAYWARD 10:30 a.m. - I (Tere Hayward) received an office visit from John Henson (CE case 2007-076); he reports that he works at the transfer station in Fruita. While at work he has seen large bales of used tires being buried at the back west side of the Design/Engineering property. Mr. Henson asked if it was legal to do that, he said that he has a real concern about the environment with the tires being buried. I advise Mr. Henson that CE was aware of tires being stored on the property, and if he would file a complaint I could add the information to the case file. Mr. Henson took a complaint form. 4/29/2010 OFFICE VISIT T. HAYWARD 11:00 a.m. - I (Tere Hayward) received an office visit from Tom McNamara he asked on the status of the case and reported that he had observed that some of the waste tires had been moved to the back on the west side of the property. CE Director Donna Ross advised Mr. McNamara that this case is one that CE is working on to take to the BoCC sometime in the near future to request for approval to file legal action. 11/24/2009 First Site Visit T. PIOTROWSKI On 11/24/09, I (Tony Piotrowski) conducted a site visit to 1255 17 1/2 Road to follow-up on a complaint about waste tires on site. Once at the site I observed very large rows of baled tires some ten feet in height. I was unable to enter the property because of a locked fence and doesn't appear there is a residence on site.

Research on current owners and a dateline on when the tires first appeared on site. 8/18/2009 File opened T. HAYWARD Old tire storage on top of hay bales. 132 Activity Log for: CE2009-0167 Page 4 of 5 Print Date: 6/16/2015 Please see CE closed cases 2001-346 and 2003-078. 8/18/2009 Acknowledgement Card Sent T. HAYWARD

8/18/2009 TELEPHONE CALL T. HAYWARD 8:38 a.m. - RP R.W. Pippenger (858-3133); returned my (Tere Hayward) telephone call, he gave me the address of the property. Fire Marshal Pippenger stated if CE Officer would like for him to go out to the property when a site visit is done, he would like to do that because he would like to work together with CE. 8/17/2009 Complaint Received T. HAYWARD

133 Activity Log for: CE2009-0167 Page 5 of 5 Print Date: 6/16/2015 HEARING NOTICE

134 Double Creek Estates Appeal Parcel/Notification Map 2015-0078 CPA June 5, 2015

Notification Buffer

LegendLegend

2500 ft buffer Parcels 2697-052-00-038 " 135

0.3 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 Miles PARCEL_NUM OWNER MAILING CITY ST ZIP 2697-054-06-007 AKERS GARY S 1776 WATERS LN FRUITA CO 815219712 2697-064-01-005 ASHTON DANIEL M 1222 LA MESA LN FRUITA CO 81521 2697-054-06-001 BACHMAN DAVID L 1754 WATERS LN FRUITA CO 81521-9712 2697-054-08-004 BAILEY DAVID S 1216 AQUA CT FRUITA CO 81521-9718 2697-054-00-030 BEEBE MORRIS R 1220 17 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521 2697-053-00-041 BERMAN DONNA A 1225 17 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521 2697-054-08-007 BIRD REED H 1223 AQUA CT FRUITA CO 81521-9718 2697-054-08-001 BISHOP OF PUEBLO 503 E ASPEN AVE FRUITA CO 81521 2697-053-09-001 BISHOP TODD J 1231 17 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-8745 2695-324-00-156 BLASDEL GORDON 317 N SYCAMORE ST FRUITA CO 81521-2416 2695-324-00-587 BOYCE BRENT R 1304 17 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9221 2697-051-01-008 BRIDGE DOUGLAS 1752 L 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521 2697-054-00-029 BROWN JO & ERNEST TRUSTPO BOX 906 VAIL CO 81658 2697-053-00-011 BURGIN WILLIAM K 505 E HARRISON AVE FRUITA CO 81521-2716 2697-054-04-002 BYERS WILLIAM F 1797 L 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9252 2697-052-03-001 CALHOUN JACK K 1295 17 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9715 2697-052-03-002 CALHOUN SHARRON LYNN 1287 17 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 815219715 2697-082-00-010 CARPENTER DORENE 1712 K 3/4 RD FRUITA CO 81521-2160 2695-314-00-139 CARRILLO RONALD A TRUST966 WESTWOOD DR PLEASANTVIEWUT 84414 2697-082-00-005 CHARLESWORTH RICK E 1398 17 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9214 2697-054-00-032 CHESNICK LORI GORRINO 1217 18 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9202 2697-054-07-003 COLBERT COY D 1221 18 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9202 2697-051-00-027 DENTON TARA A 252 N MAPLE ST FRUITA CO 81521 2697-052-00-038 DESIGN/ENGINEERING LLC 1912 MONUMENT CAGRAND JUNCT CO 81507-9527 2697-053-00-051 DONOHUE DONALD L TRUSTPO BOX 1826 EAGLE CO 81631-1826 2695-323-07-001 DOWNER JIMMIE L 1301 17 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9222 2697-054-08-002 EDMONDS BRANDEN 1224 AQUA CT FRUITA CO 81521 2697-054-06-006 EVERETT MICHAEL F AND H1772 WATERS LN FRUITA CO 81521 2695-314-00-466 FARNEY DAVID H AND FARN1321 17 RD FRUITA CO 81521 2697-064-01-008 FLIFLET STEVEN J PO BOX 246 HILMAR CA 95324 2697-051-00-020 GREEN TROY ALLEN 916 PATRICIA CT FRUITA CO 81521 2697-054-05-002 GWATNEY LINDA K TRUST 1759 L 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9252 2697-081-67-001 HALL MATTHEW L 1194 17 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 815212482 2697-054-07-001 HAMS JIM A 1241 18 RD FRUITA CO 815219202 2697-051-00-028 HARRINGTON NANCY L 1276 17 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9220 2697-064-02-006 HELLMUTH RICK D PO BOX 423 FRUITA CO 81521-0423 2697-051-00-022 HERRON ROBERT RAYMOND1788 L 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9251 2697-064-01-002 HOFFMAN DOUGLAS W 1223 LA MESA LN FRUITA CO 81521-6700 2697-064-02-004 HOOKER JONATHAN M PO BOX 3743 GRAND JUNCT CO 81502 2697-071-07-004 JCB ENTERPRISES LLC PO BOX 770282 STEAMBOAT SPCO 80477 2697-064-01-004 JL HARALSON INVESTMENTS1220 LA MESA LN FRUITA CO 815216700 2697-082-00-087 JOHNSON DAN L 1187 17 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-2483 2697-054-00-056 JORDAN LIVING TRUST 889 ESPIRIT LN FRUITA CO 815217435 2697-053-09-002 KOHLS JOHN E 1934 STAR CANYON DGRAND JUNCT CO 81507-9528 2697-064-01-006 LAKE ROBERT P 1699 L 1/4 RD FRUITA CO 81521 2697-054-08-005 LAMPSHIRE DELETHA D 1215 AQUA CT FRUITA CO 81521

136 2697-051-01-002 LANDINI ROBIN L 1768 L 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9251 2697-064-01-003 LILLO FRANK C 1219 LA MESA LN FRUITA CO 81521 2697-051-00-043 MARCHUN RALPH F 1761 M RD FRUITA CO 81521-9232 2697-051-00-044 MARCHUN ZETTA H 1777 M RD FRUITA CO 81521-9232 2697-051-01-010 MCGRANAHAN MYRNA J 1774 L 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9251 2697-051-00-006 MCGRANAHAN RODNEY D 1776 L 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9251 2697-061-00-766 MCINTYRE RICHARD DAN 1680 L 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521 2697-054-06-005 MCNAMARA THOMAS D 1768 WATERS LN FRUITA CO 81521-9712 2697-081-69-942 MESA COUNTY VALLEY SCHO2115 GRAND AVE GRAND JUNCT CO 81501 2697-054-06-004 NIELSON DUSTIN 1764 WATERS LN FRUITA CO 81521 2697-064-02-002 NOEM TROY D 1698 L 1/4 RD FRUITA CO 81521 2697-054-06-002 OBERG BRIAN E 1758 WATERS LN FRUITA CO 81521 2697-051-01-011 OFFICER ZACKARY T 1760 L 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521 2695-324-00-213 PALMER DANIEL D 1770 M RD FRUITA CO 81521 2697-082-05-004 PARMENTER DELBERT E 1722 K 3/4 RD FRUITA CO 81521-2160 2695-323-07-002 ROBERTS MICHAEL 1323 17 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521 2697-054-08-003 ROLAND JAMES R 2302 TERRY CT GRAND JUNCT CO 81507-1406 2697-082-03-006 RYAN DEBRA KAYE 1356 S 2500 W VERNAL UT 840784781 2697-054-08-006 RYAN MICHAEL S 1219 AQUA CT FRUITA CO 81521-9718 2695-314-00-187 SCHMIDT MICHELL MYRLE 300 MISSION VIEW D ELLENSBURG WA 98926 2697-064-02-005 SCHREINER TYLER D 1629 LA MESA CT FRUITA CO 81521 2697-064-01-007 SHEPHERD BRUCE 1224 LA MESA LN FRUITA CO 81521 2697-064-02-001 SKEES MARTIN T 1626 LA MESA CT FRUITA CO 81521 2697-064-02-007 SMITH CLIFFORD DOUGLAS 889 24 RD GRAND JUNCT CO 81505 2697-064-02-008 SMITH DAVID A 1691 L 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9732 2697-082-03-007 SNYDER FRED L 1195 17 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521 2697-064-01-001 SORENSEN RALEIGH 1221 LA MESA LN FRUITA CO 81521-6700 2697-054-05-001 SPETTER JEREMY 1751 L 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521 2697-053-00-009 STANDIFIRD MICHAEL A 1219 17 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9719 2697-053-00-049 STORM JIMMIE D 1205 17 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9714 2697-051-01-007 SUNDMACHER ALLEN F 1754 L 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521 2697-054-04-001 SWANSON JO ANN 1787 L 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9252 2697-064-02-003 WASSON NINNIAN M 1630 LA MESA CT FRUITA CO 81521-6703 2695-324-00-159 WATSON JERRY D 1786 M RD FRUITA CO 81521-9231 2697-053-00-052 WELKER DANIEL D SR 1203 17 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9714 2697-053-00-054 WILLIAM K SOMERVILLE FAMPO BOX 126 FRUITA CO 81521-0126 2697-051-01-003 WILLOUGHBY ALFRED D 1766 L 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9251 2697-054-05-003 WILSON KENNETH D 1761 L 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521 2697-051-01-006 WIMBERLY SHANNON R 1758 L 1/2 RD FRUITA CO 81521-9251 2697-054-06-003 WINSLOW ANTHONY WAYN1760 WATERS LN FRUITA CO 81521 Dave Kotz, SGM Engineering2768 Compass Dr. #10Grand JunctionCO 81506

137 MCPC WORKSHOP MINUTES

138 Mesa County Planning Commission Workshop June 11, 2015

2015-0078 CPA Double Creek Estates Concept Plan Appeal

a. Planner: Linda Dannenberger presented the case for denial.

b. Comments during MCPC discussion:

MCPC: 40-50,000 tires on the property, and it appears the owner is in the process of moving them to a pile near 17 Road. Why was it allowed to begin with?

Tony Piotrowski: Neighbor complaints were received in 2009 and a Code Violation case was created. Activity appeared to have started in 2004 with the creation of the corrals, then in 2010 he received a complaint from the Lower Valley Fire Marshall who was concerned about a fire. Additionally, an old flatbed trailer and baled tires were placed in the wash to create a bridge. The bridge was removed and some of the bales but some remain. It is hard to determine how many tires were buried. Tires were buried in the wash to serve as a road but without CDPHE review and approval. Mesa County also requires permits for buried waste. The owner has applied to CDPHE for a beneficial use grant, but CDPHE needs an engineered study before they can approve it. The applicant is going to remove the request for the grant. They are also applying for a grant to remove the waste tires. Tony had written a grant for it in 2012 but was denied. The regulations have changed and these grants no longer require prosecution. CDPHE has been aware of this property since 2011. Projects are prioritized and Tony said CDPHE still has funds left for this fiscal year. By bringing the tires out to the road, it increases the chances for approval of the grant, and if the tires in the road leading to the wash are brought up to the road it would help. The volume would need to be calculated as part of the grant. Mesa County was sued by the owner, and the County won the lawsuit as the old landfill was closed in compliance with the regulations in the early 1980’s. This held up the process for two years.

Joe Moreng asked what the basis of the appeal is. None was submitted.

Other comments: the pile of tires is new but they are not gone yet. The landfill limits 9 tires/trip and tires don’t qualify for free days. This volume of tires requires a certified tire hauler. Some companies grind up the tires and add them to asphalt paving.

Keith Ehlers represented the owner: The owner acquired the property and is doing something with it, and has spent money on studies. It is a complex issue and professional services have been brought in. The tires are being removed and he is happy to discuss how they can meet the conditions of the denial of the project. They had a draft Concept Plan approval, and then before it was final it was denied. They need the approval to get entitlements to development and to obtain funds to develop the property. They will remove the tires before Final Plan stage. They’ll get the irrigation water issue worked out.

1

139 There is good irrigation water in the tributary during irrigation season, and it is poor quality when it is not in season. They are concerned when the Board of County Commissioners pass down directives about Code violations – it just changed with this project. Removing the tires along with an approval with conditions allows them to move forward with the project.

MCPC Comments: These are good points but the applicant just brought a representative on board, and information needs to be reviewed. Linda Dannenberger has received nothing to support the appeal, and information needs to be documented. Extensions of the appeal need to have written confirmation by the applicant. If we said OK, go ahead, could they start building?

Linda Dannenberger: No, they would have to go through the Final Plan application process. They are asking to be allowed to move forward, but appropriate paperwork needs to be brought through since they are not refuting the basis for denial (issues identified during the Concept Plan review). These would have to be put into conditions of approval.

MCPC Comments: The applicants were OK with the draft staff report, concern it was changed. The conditions are do-able, and the application meets the intent of the regulations. There is a difference between tweaking and a change to the plans to meet the standards. If the changes are significant enough, it goes back through the Concept Plan process. A legal opinion was requested.

Pat Coleman said there are two issues: 1) if they have Concept Plan approval they can go to investors and get help if they have a potential for development, and 2) there was a Code violation in 2010 and it has stagnated. They sued the County about the property on a separate issue but they haven’t been able to remedy the Code violation in five years. Do we spend Staff time on a project that has buried tires? Ultimately the County Commissioners can uphold the appeal or the denial. There is a basis for either argument.

MCPC Comments: The issue is the tires, it’s been a long time and when they are gone, we’ll talk. The subdivision has tires, floodplain, a bad stretch of road and an unworkable Concept Plan. The applicant can start over with a better Concept Plan. We can’t do anything with this, there are lots in the floodplain, and it needs to be changed. Can it be deferred for a month so it can be tweaked? The applicant would have to agree to the continuation in writing. We haven’t received anything in writing. This isn’t a plan that will work in any fashion; we’d like to see it come back with more progress on the removal of tires. The tires haven’t been removed, just moved.

Interactive discussion: The representative asked for time to provide a response because they have made progress. The Planning Commission stated they can’t recommend approval until the issues are addressed. What the applicant has shown in improvement is the bare minimum.

2

140 How long will the grant take? The applicant writes the grant and it can be reviewed within 30 days. Have they written it yet? No. Since they are no longer pursuing the beneficial use grant, they will calculate the total volume and be added to the priority list. Has the beneficial use grant application been withdrawn? Yes. MCPC agrees it needs to be cleaned up and developed, however, the County can’t afford to pay for the clean-up and we’re not sure the value of the land would pay for the clean-up.

Motion for Recommendation: Rusty Price moved to deny the appeal based on what has been submitted at this meeting, in writing and pictures; Ron Wriston seconded. Vote in favor: 9-0

3

141 REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS

142

PRO2014-0069 - DOUBLE CREEK ESTATES CONCEPT PLAN Review Agency Comments Comments Due Date: 2015-01-12

User Review Date/Time Comment Agency Christie Barton 12/19/2014 Received updated information (previously loaded into PRE 3:04:20 PM application). Tire issue will be reviewed during Concept Plan process. Melinda MC TREASURER 12/22/2014 As of December 22, 2014 property taxes are paid in full on parcel Henderson 12:10:20 PM number 2697-052-00-038. MMH KEVIN WILLIAMS IRR GV 12/22/2014 GVDD has no facilities west of 17 1/2 Road. It appears that East DRAINAGE 2:08:13 PM Big Salt Wash (Drain) is a natural drain of the country that the District has been maintaining portions of this natural facility by mistake east of 17 1/2 Road. Nancy Carter MC ASSESSOR 12/22/2014 The Assessor's Office has no comments. 2:09:03 PM Courtney MC CODE 12/22/2014 Mesa County Code Compliance Services does currently have an Campbell COMPLIANCE 3:49:59 PM open Case File (CE2009-0167) for a Code Violation pertaining to solid waste disposal, specifically storage of tires. This Violation needs to be corrected or resolved prior to approval. Please contact Mesa County Code Compliance Services with any further questions or concerns. Shirley Beall MC ADDRESSING 12/23/2014 Addressing is unable to comment until internal road names are 9:14:30 AM labeled. At that time it will be determined if chosen names are acceptable. Shirley/Addressing PERRY RUPP UT GV RURAL 12/23/2014 1. The project is in the Grand Valley Power (GVP) service area. POWER 12:10:30 PM 2. Single-phase power (7.2 kV) is available for this project, along 17.5 Road. There is also a 69 kV transmission line easement along the north property line. 3. Need Grand Valley Power electric design layout on FINAL Utility Composite Plan. Showing the locations of streetlights, transformers, junction boxes, road crossings (number of conduits, type, size, depth & length) and any other needed equipment. 4. Please make application for service by calling 242-0040, to start the design process. A cost estimate will also be prepared. (This needs to be started as soon as possible.) 5. Need Final Plat with addresses before going to Contract for Construction with Grand Valley Power. 6. Need 14’ Multi-Purpose Easements along all roads. 7. No trees to be planted over utility portion of Multi-Purpose Easement. 8. Any Utility / Multi-Purpose Easement that is also used for landscaping will need to have underground power lines built in duct system. 9. Irrigation and drainage lines should not be in the utility portion of the Multi-Purpose Easement. 10. Any relocation of existing overhead power lines, poles,

143 guy/anchors, underground lines, transformers or any other Grand Valley Power equipment is at the developer’s expense.

Carrie Gudorf MC FLOODPLAIN 12/24/2014 A floodplain development permit will not be required because the ADMIN 10:19:27 AM site is not located within a FEMA regulatory floodplain. Nathan Green US ARMY CORPS 12/29/2014 From Nathan Green: 10:00:41 AM Nathan Green and Tyler Adams, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, met the landowner on site on December 9, 2014, to discuss his request to leave the tire bales in place, in the stream near the collapsed bridge. The landowner asserted the tires were placed there to raise the water level in the creek for his irrigation pump station approximately 200 feet upstream. I reviewed the situation and determined that the tires need to be removed. We also discussed the potential placement of a road crossing near the location of the collapsed bridge, and also the potential for construction of a dam in this same location to create a pond. I informed him that both of those activities would require a Department of the Army 404 permit.

The landowner agreed to remove the tires from the stream and send me photos when this had been accomplished. As of December 29, 2014 he has not provided said photos.

The tires in the stream and any potential road crossings appear to be the only jurisdictional activities the within Corps Jurisdiction for this project. JIM DAUGHERTY WATER UTE 1/5/2015 • Water mains shall be C900, minimum DR18 PVC. Installation of all 3:26:08 PM pipe, fittings, valves, and services, including testing and disinfection shall be in accordance with Ute Water standard specifications and drawings. • Developer is responsible for installing meter pits and yokes (pits and yokes supplied by Ute Water) • Construction plans required 48 hours before construction begins. If plans change the developer must submit a new set of plans. • Electronic drawings of the utility composite for the subdivision, in Autocad.dwg format, must be provided prior to final acceptance of the water infrastructure. • Water meters will not be sold until final acceptance of the water infrastructure. • Move water lines to north side of L 1/2 & Double Creek alignments.

• Move fire hydrant at lots 14 & 15 to opposite beginning of radius for cul-de-sac.

• Eliminate 45 degree bend and make the terminus of Double Creek main straight.

• Move fire hydrant to services for lots 6 & 7.

• Eliminate the valve cluster as shown at Double Creek and 17 ½

144 Rd, show only the tapping valve to the west. 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.

Robin Carns MC DEV 1/6/2015 Percolation tests were conducted for each lot and submitted 10-13- ENGINEER 3:30:43 PM 2014 per requirements of the 6-30-14 OWTS Regulations. If location of OWTS varies from perc location, additional perc tests shall be conducted. FIRE MARSHALL FIRE LOWER 1/7/2015 Move fire hydrant at lots 14 & 15 to opposite beginning of radius FRUITA VALLEY 11:55:08 AM for cul-de-sac. Install fire hydrant at intersection of 17 1/2 road and Double Creek Road (north side) Move fire hydrant to services for lots 6 & 7.

Fire hydrant pumper connections shall be equipped with a five inch non threaded sexless connection (commonly referred to as Storz) and metal cap and can be opened by a standard hex nut hydrant wrench. The two and one half inch butts shall be furnished with National Standard Thread. The center of the pumper connection shall be not less than 22 inches above finished grade. Pumper connections shall face the street unless directed otherwise by the Fire Chief.

145 COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

1801 19th Street Golden, Colorado 80401 303-384-2655

Karen Berry January 12, 2015 State Geologist

Christie Barton Location: Mesa County Planning and Development W½ Section 5, P.O. Box 20,000 T1N, R2W of the Ute P.M Grand Junction, CO 81502 39.1866, -108.7306

Subject: Double Creek Estates Concept Plan Project PRO2014-0069; Mesa County, CO; CGS Unique No. MA-15-0008

Dear Christie:

Colorado Geological Survey has reviewed the above-referenced concept plan. I understand the applicant proposes to subdivide a 55-acre parcel at 1255 17½ Road, Fruita, into 16 single family residential lots of approximately one to four acres. CGS reviewed a previous Double Creek Estates Concept Plan for ten lots; our comments were discussed in a letter dated January 30, 2009. With this referral, I received a Concept Plan Narrative (SGM, March 4, 2014), an air photo, a location map (September 19, 2013), and a set of seven Conceptual Plans (SGM, March 27, 2014).

CGS reviewed a Geotechnical Investigation for the previous Double Creek Estates concept plan submittal (Huddleston-Berry Engineering and Testing [HBET], July 25, 2008). Potential concerns include:

Municipal solid waste landfill /uncontrolled fill materials. The northern portion of the site, corresponding to proposed Outlot A, was historically used as a municipal landfill. Trash, wood and glass were logged in HBET’s test pit TP-9. The applicant states that Outlot A “will remain as vacant land under the ownership and management of the HOA.” Landfill debris and uncontrolled fill are not suitable bearing materials for any structure or improvements. CGS recommends that Outlot A be specifically designated, through a plat note, as non-buildable or non-developable.

Drainage channels, steep slopes and erosion. Steep slopes define Big Salt Wash and a tributary drainage crossing the site. To minimize the risk of damage due to erosion and undercutting, homes and septic systems should be located as far from all slope crests as possible. Section R403.1.7.2 of the Mesa County-adopted 2012 International Residential Code, “Footing setback from descending slope surfaces,” requires a setback from the crest of the all slopes of 1/3 the height of the slope or 40 feet, whichever is smaller, to reduce potential hazards associated with erosion, slope instability, and shallow failures such as creep and slumping. CGS believes that a setback of 1/3 of the height of the slope is insufficient on this site and does not take into account ongoing and future slope erosion or shallow failures such as creep and slumping.

Building envelopes or non-buildable steep slope setbacks should be identified on proposed Lots 5 through 9 and Lots 11 through 16. Building envelopes should be set back at least 30 feet from all slope crests, or a non-buildable setback of at least 30 feet from slope crests should be shown on the plat. This 30-ft setback should be considered an absolute minimum, not only to protect improvements from rising floodwaters, but also to minimize the risk of erosion and undercutting along creek banks.

146 Expansive and collapsible soils. According to available geologic mapping (Livaccari and Hodge, 2009, Geologic map of the Fruita quadrangle, Mesa County, Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey, Open-File Report 09-04, scale 1:24,000), the site is underlain by alluvial mudflow and fan valley fill deposits, consisting of fine- grained, clayey to sandy silt and derived from the Mancos Shale. These soils are typically low-strength, and exhibit hydrocompaction (collapse under wetting and loading.) The clayey or Mancos Shale-derived fraction of the alluvial soils often exhibits potentially structurally damaging volume changes (shrink-swell) in response to changes in water content. The current applicant should obtain a copy of HBET’s 2008 report, as it contains site-specific test pit logs, laboratory test results and preliminary geotechnical recommendations.

Lot-specific geotechnical investigations, including drilling, sampling, lab testing and analysis, will be needed, once building locations are finalized and prior to issuance of any building permits, to characterize soil engineering properties such as density, strength, water content and swell/consolidation potential. This information is needed to determine subgrade preparation requirements and to design foundations, floor systems, pavements, and subsurface drainage. Proper design and maintenance of grading, surface drainage, and subsurface drainage are critical to reduce potential sources of infiltration into soils surrounding foundations and pavements, and to help control wetting of potentially expansive and collapsible soils in the immediate vicinity of foundation elements and floor slabs.

Corrosive soils. Huddleston-Berry noted “abundant sulfates” in six of their nine test pit logs and states (pages 4 and 7) that “The soluble sulfates content of the native shale bedrock was determined to be as high as 2600 ppm.” This represents a severe degree of sulfate exposure. Type V sulfate attack-resistant cement should be used in all project concrete on this site. According to Mesa County Soil Survey data, the site soils are also moderately to highly corrosive to steel. Steel that will be in contact with site soils should be epoxy-coated to reduce the risk of corrosion-related damage to water supply pipelines and other buried utilities.

Groundwater, perched water, subsurface drainage and feasibility of basements. HBET states (pages 3 and 8) that groundwater was encountered in just one of the test pits, at seven feet below the ground surface, in the southeastern portion of the site. However, several of the test pits were excavated to depths of only 5 to 5.5 feet, and none of the pits were left open long enough for groundwater levels to achieve equilibrium. Based on the close proximity of Big Salt Wash and a tributary traversing the property, and the shallow bedrock observed in TP-2 through TP-6, groundwater and perched water should be expected to occur at very shallow depths, at least seasonally. Since lowermost floor and crawlspace levels must be located at least three feet, and preferably five feet, above maximum anticipated groundwater levels, basements should not be considered feasible on this site.

Onsite wastewater systems (OWS). Mesa County Soil Survey data indicates that the entire parcel is very limited in its suitability for conventional OWS (septic tank absorption fields) due to low-permeability soils, slow percolation rates, shallow bedrock, and shallow groundwater. Septic systems will probably need to be designed by an engineer. Since engineered septic systems tend to require more maintenance and have shorter lifespans than conventional systems, a backup OWS location should be identified on each lot.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have questions or need further review, please call me at (303) 384-2643, or email [email protected].

Sincerely,

Jill Carlson, C.E.G. Engineering Geologist

147 NO PUBLIC COMMENTS

148 APPLICANT INFORMATION

149 www.sgm-inc.com

May 4, 2015

Ms. Christie Barton, Senior Planner Sent Via Email: [email protected] Ms. Linda Dannenberger, Division Director [email protected] Mesa County Planning 200 S. Spruce Street P.O. Box 20,000-5022 Grand Junction, CO 81502-5001

Re: Appeal of Denial of Concept Plan Double Creek Estates PRO2014-0069 CP 1255 17 ½ Road, Fruita

Dear Christie and Linda,

Please consider this letter as Design/Engineering, LLC’s formal written appeal of Linda’s administrative decision issued April 10, 2015 entitled Denial of the Double Creek Estates Subdivision Concept Plan.

Mr. Ed Kuechler previously transmitted a $275 appeal fee for an action that was withdrawn last year. Please apply that fee to this application or let us know if that is not possible.

We look forward to meeting with you on this appeal. Should you have any immediate questions or comments, please don’t hesitate to call me at 970.384.9008.

Sincerely,

SGM

David M. Kotz, PE Civil Engineer

GLENWOOD SPRINGS 118 West Sixth St, Suite 200 | Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 | 970.945.1004 150 5/11/2015 Mesa County Mail - Double Creek Appeal

Linda Dannenberger

Double Creek Appeal 2 messages

Linda Dannenberger Fri, May 8, 2015 at 4:06 PM To: David Kotz

Dave, will you verify that you left a phone message with me on May 7 that stated that you were waiving your right to a public hearing within 30 days and would accept a hearing date in June?

Thanks,

-- Linda

Linda Dannenberger Planning Division Director Mesa County Public Works (970)244-1771

David Kotz Fri, May 8, 2015 at 6:39 PM To: Linda Dannenberger

That is correct. Thanks, Dave

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone [Quoted text hidden]

151 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=a86a416c39&view=pt&search=inbox&th=14d3590ad4e953cf&siml=14d3590ad4e953cf&siml=14d361ca70dad61e 1/1 To: Mesa County Board of County Commissioners Mesa County Planning – Christies Barton / Linda Dannenberger From: Double Creek Estates – Keith Ehlers (Planning Representative) Date: June 15, 2015

Re: Concept Plan Appeal for Double Creek Estates Subdivision

The intent of this Appeal to the decision of Denial of Concept Plan for the Double Creek Estates Subdivision is to specifically appeal the directive issued to Planning Staff to execute a blanket Denial rather than an “Approval With Conditions”. The applicant is not challenging any requirement to address the items cited in the denial, and agrees that the issues be resolved prior any vested rights or permanent approvals being issued on the site. The proposed plan conceptually meets, or can meet, the development standards of Mesa County and approval of Concept Plan With Conditions will not grant or otherwise provide any vested rights, permanent certificates, permits, or allowances on the site. The purpose of Concept Plan is to confirm the proposed use is, or can be, consistent with Mesa County zoning and development standards, and to identify the issues that must be addressed prior to final plan approval when vested rights on the property are granted. By utilizing one of the many Remedies and Enforcement Powers provided in Section 11.4 of the Land Development Code the specific enforcement tool of “Section 11.4.2-Permits Approved With Conditions” has been used consistently for countless other development projects at the Concept Plan stage. In recent history, and for current projects, it has been used as an appropriate and acceptable mechanism to facilitate progress of the application and motivation to resolve any issues on the site so it is concerning that Double Creek Estates is being held to a different standard.

The appeal is also a result of the applicant’s concern over the process by which more than a year’s worth of work with the Planning Department Staff that put the project on a path toward Concept Plan Approval With Conditions was suddenly and unexpectedly undermined by voluntary intervention by the Board Of County Commissioner’s (BOCC) and/or the County Attorney’s office. The ‘Development Review Procedures Summary Table’ in Chapter 3 of the Land Development Code identifies the Planning Commission as a recommending body to the Planning Director as the Decision Maker. The BOCC’s only role in this process is in the event of an Appeal. Now the applicant is in a questionable position where the entity responsible for the actions that led to the appeal is now the decision making body of the Appeal. It is unusual for directives to come from the BOCC that completely overturn and halt the progress of a project at the initial phase of Concept Plan and it is troubling that the directives were given without notice or invitation to the applicant to be present to discuss, defend, or propose solutions for any items of concern.

Section 1.5 of the Land Development Code indicates the Purpose of the code. The process by which this project was directed to be changed from being on track for approval with conditions to a blanket denial challenges the purposes listed in Section 1.5 as shown below: “1.5 | Purpose This Land Development Code is adopted for the purpose of preserving and improving the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens and businesses of Mesa County. More specifically, it is the purpose of this Land Development Code to: A. implement the purposes, goals, and policies of the Mesa County Master Plan; The proposed Concept Plan does, or can, implement the goals of the Master Plan. Some minor revisions can be made as a response to comments or conditions of the Concept Plan and Mesa County will still have the ability to ensure the issues have been resolved prior to issuing Final Plan approval and the associated vested rights that come at that stage of the approval process. B. promote predictability, consistency, and efficiency in the land development process for residents, neighborhoods, businesses, and agricultural and development interests; This ‘Purpose Item’ has not been fulfilled by Mesa County. On-going projects and historical precedent has established consistency regarding Concept Plan proposals being approved with conditions if it can be shown that the conditions

1

152 can be reasonably met by the applicant. The historical and expected use of approval with conditions has promoted predictability, consistency, and efficiency in the land development process. The County has accomplished this while still protecting their interests by utilizing the Remedy and Enforcement Power provided by Section 11.4.2 of the Code. However, the recent voluntary interaction of BOCC and the County Attorney’s office yielded unpredictability, inconsistency, and inefficiency upon issuing directives for staff to revise the draft report that indicated approval with conditions and change it to blanket denial. The involvement of BOCC to direct Staff to change its report is unusual because the Concept Plan does not typically require BOCC interaction according to the ‘Development Review Procedures Summary Table’ in Chapter 3 of the Land Development Code. C. provide appropriate opportunities for participation and involvement in the development process by all affected parties; This ‘Purpose Item’ has not been fulfilled by Mesa County. The applicant was neither notified nor invited to be present to discuss, defend, or propose solutions for any items of concern when the BOCC chose to involve itself in the Concept Plan process. D. promote development that is consistent and compatible with that of the municipalities within Mesa County within the joint municipal planning areas; and This criteria is met by the proposed Concept Plan. E. be fair to all by giving due consideration to protecting private property rights, the rights of individuals, and the rights of the community as a whole. In instances where an application to develop does not meet all applicable criteria of this Code, and unique or special circumstances exist which would warrant the approval of the application to develop, and provided the proposed development: (a) poses no threat to health or safety; (b) provides for the mitigation of impacts to the maximum extent reasonable; and (c) is generally consistent and compatible with the allowed uses in the applicable Zoning District, the application to develop may be approved.” This ‘Purpose Item’ has not been fulfilled by Mesa County. Projects have historically been able to resolve issues revealed at Concept Plan during the subsequent process as a condition of approval for Final Plan. As recent as the June 11, Planning Commission Workshop it was recommended that an unrelated project application for Concept Plan be approved with conditions, and Staff’s report supports the approval. The referenced proposed plan is not consistent with development standards yet Staff and the Planning Commission determined it was acceptable for the applicant receive concept plan approval and be allowed to come up with a solution prior to Final Plan approval as a condition of the Concept Plan approval. The approval with conditions is generally acceptable to the development community and this applicant. This ‘Purpose Item’ is stated to “…be fair to all…”, but directives to Staff and subsequent denial of the proposed Concept Plan for Double Creek Estates is uniquely unfair, inconsistent, and in contrast to the intent of this Section.

Additionally, the events leading to Staff’s report changing from a draft version of approval with conditions to a blanket denial seems to ignore the intent of this ‘Purpose Item’ to allow Planning Staff discretion to approve a development application in instances with “unique or special circumstances”.

The directive to deny Concept Plan will have little to no effect on the efforts to resolve the code violation regarding the tires, but will force the applicant to unnecessarily start the development process over from the beginning. Conversely, an approval of this appeal would remand it back to Planning Commission and allow the applicant to make revisions to the plan where necessary and disclose and update the ongoing progress being made on the viable options for addressing the issues of Irrigation and the Code Violation related to the tires on the site that can be pursued as a condition of approval of Final Plan prior to gaining any vested rights on the property. If the Denial is upheld, unnecessary time, money, and lost opportunity costs of capitalizing on the current favorable market will be needlessly expended by the applicant. Unnecessary burden will also be placed on County Planning Staff and the review agencies associated with a formal Concept Plan submittal that will be seeing roughly the same plan with minor revisions reflecting the progress made since the last time they reviewed it. The applicant has taken corrective action and has been working diligently with Code Enforcement, the State of Colorado, and Planning Staff to resolve the issues identified over the course of the Concept Plan process thus far. Although the issue regarding the tires is not a new issue, the applicant has established a strong record of effort and investment

2

153 in recent months to resolve this issue as diligently as possible so what does the County hope to gain by halting an otherwise acceptable development project at the initial stage of Concept Plan where no rights or permanent privilege is granted to the site or the applicant?

Please find below the code sections referenced in the letter of Denial and a brief response from the applicant: 1. Section 6.5 | Urban Residential Reserve (URR) Subdivision Standards The following standards shall be met for applications for major subdivisions in the URR zone district: A. The lot or parcel must be a minimum of ten (10) acres to qualify for subdivision. (Previously subdivided lots created under AFT zoning may apply individually without averaging density back to the total acreage of the recorded subdivision.) Criteria is met by proposed Concept Plan. B. A minimum of forty percent (40%) of the gross site area shall be retained in a single building lot (the Reserve Lot). Two (2) Reserve Lots may be allowed if necessary to accommodate natural physical divisions of the property. All Reserve Lots shall be sized to allow redevelopment in the future and shall have direct access to public right-of-way. Previous to recent interaction with BOCC and the County Attorney, the Planning Staff and Planning Director had agreed with the applicant that the unique presence of an old landfill on the northern portion of the site and the major constraints of the wash and tributaries warranted an exception to the area of the landfill when calculating the 40% reserve lot. However, the result of recent interaction with BOCC and the County Attorney has redirected Planning to designate the landfill area as sensitive or undevelopable land that can no longer be considered in the 40% reserve lot calculation. The applicant maintains that the landfill site may have challenges for certain types of development, but it is not undevelopable and therefore should be considered in the reserve lot calculation. The applicant acknowledges that residential development on the land fill may require such extensive mitigation to meet safety and health standards that it is unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future, but residential development is not the only type of development needed as growth approaches this area in the future. There are several other allowed uses in the URR Zone that would be appropriate development for this site in the future when warranted. Examples of such uses could include uses not requiring habitable structures such as a regional public park, or perhaps a utility facility such as renewable energy generation (i.e. community/cooperative solar array). We cannot speculate what the future development may be but the site is certainly developable in the future for a range of uses allowed in the URR Zone and therefore qualifies to be part of the reserve lot calculation. C. The maximum allowed subdivision density for the application shall be calculated by dividing the gross acreage within the application by two (2) (the lowest number of acres per unit allowed in the URR zone district). Criteria is met by proposed Concept Plan. D. Land in agricultural production shall be located in the Reserve Lot(s) to the greatest extent possible. Criteria was considered and the constraints of this property’s unique features hindered the ability to place all the agricultural land in the reserve lot. E. If outlots or easements are necessary to supply sewer in the future to the developed lots or to the Reserve Lot(s) as determined by the project engineer or the municipality, they shall be designated on the subdivision plat. The outlots or easements will be maintained as designated on the final plat until they may be deeded to the municipality or serving entity for sewer line construction and maintenance purposes. Criteria is met by proposed Concept Plan. F. Trail easements/outlots shall be provided for public use throughout the entire site in accordance with trails plans adopted by either the nearby municipality or by Mesa County except where there are unresolved conflicts with existing easements. Such trails are not required to be constructed. If the municipality does not accept the easement or outlot, then the easement or outlot will be dedicated to the homeowners association. All trails within the development shall be constructed with adequate compacted road base (or similar material acceptable to the Planning Director) as a minimum standard. Criteria is, or can be, met by proposed Concept Plan. Easements will be provided at final plan.

3

154 G. Appropriate right-of-way will be required to be dedicated through the Reserve Lot to the property line abutting adjacent property to implement the adopted Transportation Plan or to provide a road network for access to adjacent properties. The road within this right-of-way may not be required to be built within the reserve lot if it does not serve lots proposed by the developer. The owner of the reserve lot may continue to work in the right-of-way in order to irrigate, cultivate or otherwise manage the land until a road is built in the future. In the case where the Reserve Lot will be divided by this right-of-way, the reserved area may be divided into two (2) Reserve Lots (the maximum allowed subdivision density (number of lots) may not be exceeded). Criteria is met by proposed Concept Plan. H. Drainages, wildlife corridors, floodplain and flood prone areas, streams and other sensitive areas governed by Chapter 7 shall be preserved in outlot(s). The proportion of sensitive lands contained within the reserve area shall be no greater than the proportion of sensitive lands within the overall application site. The Planning Director shall have the ability to consider a variance if necessary. Criteria is met by proposed Concept Plan, although some lot line revision may be necessary to remove portions of lots from the Big Salt Wash corridor as requested by review agencies and Staff. I. A site plan shall be provided to show options for access, utility corridors and circulation for future redevelopment of the Reserve Lot(s). Criteria is met by proposed Concept Plan. The reserve lot has direct access to both 17 1/2 Road and the proposed internal road system. J. Stormwater detention/retention areas shall be designed to be a landscaped amenity, and landscape plans shall be submitted for review and approval, and construction by the developer. If the drainage area is to be common area useful for recreation, it may be counted as part of the Reserve lot, provided owners of the Reserve lot and owners of the re-subdivided Reserve lot will have access to it. Criteria is, or can be, met by proposed Concept Plan. Final engineering of the stormwater mitigation areas will be provided at Final Plan. K. Provisions for weed control on outlots and common areas shall be proposed in the Concept Plan phase of review and approved by the Mesa County Weed and Pest Inspector. Criteria is, or can be, met by proposed Concept Plan. Specific HOA and weed control plans for the outlots shall be drawn up at Final Plan. L. An irrigation plan will be provided that addresses construction and maintenance of supply and tail water ditches. Instructions for maintenance of the irrigation system and the irrigation plan shall be recorded at the same time as the final plat. Criteria is, or can be, met by proposed Concept Plan. Currently the applicant seeks to use water from a tributary, but if it cannot be shown that the water is reliable and of sufficient quality during the irrigation season the applicant can pursue the purchase of GVIC shares as a condition prior to approval of Final Plan. Fortunately, this is not a matter of if irrigation water is available for the project, but rather a discussion on which water source shall be used. Upon settling on the source of irrigation as required by condition of approval for Final Plan an engineered irrigation plan will be submitted for approval along with Final Plan.

2. 7.12.2 | Standards All new development must comply with the standards of the responsible irrigation or drainage company, or district or lateral association. New development shall be required to use irrigation water for irrigation purposes wherever irrigation water is physically and legally available, rather than use potable domestic water. The intent, as described by Planning Staff, of this code section is to ensure the future lot owners have reliable and sufficient quality irrigation to irrigate their land without having to abandon the irrigation water and use domestic water supplies for outdoor use. Currently the applicant seeks to use water from a tributary, but if it cannot be shown that the water is reliable and of sufficient quality during the irrigation season the applicant can pursue the purchase of GVIC shares as a condition prior to approval of Final Plan. Fortunately, this is not a matter of if irrigation water is available for the project, but rather a discussion on which water source shall be used. Upon settling on the source of irrigation as required by condition of approval for Final Plan an engineered irrigation plan will be submitted for approval along with Final Plan.

4

155

3. 7.6.1 | Hazard Areas Land subject to hazardous conditions such as wildfire, landslides, gamma radiation, mud flows, rock falls, snow avalanches, possible mine subsidence, shallow water table, open quarries, floods, steep slopes, soil creep, seismicity, expansive, hydrocompactive and erodible soils, and polluted or nonpotable water supply, shall be identified in all applications, and development shall not be permitted in these areas unless the application provides for the avoidance of the particular hazards. If avoidance is impossible or would require the construction to violate other development standards, then such hazards shall be minimized or mitigated. Land subject to severe wind and water erosion shall be identified on all plans and shall not be subdivided unless the problems are mitigated by density limitation or some other practical method. Criteria is, or can be, met by proposed Concept Plan. Some minor lot line revisions must be made in response to comments from review agencies to pull the lots of the hazard area and wildlife corridor (i.e. Big Salt Wash). The minor revisions can be done with minimal impact to the proposed plan as a required condition prior to Final Plan approval.

4. 3.63 | Concept Plan G. Approval Criteria. A Concept Plan may be approved by the Planning Director when considering the General Approval Criteria in Section 3.1.17 and the following: 1. the county and other service providers will be able to provide adequate facilities and services (including sewage and waste disposal, domestic water, and irrigation water, [where available], gas, electricity, police and fire protection, and roads and transportation, as applicable) which shall be available upon completion of the project to serve the subject property while maintaining adequate levels of service to existing development; Criteria can be, met by proposed Concept Plan. Studies performed to date show the proposed development can provide independent sewer systems in accordance with the health department standards on the proposed lots. Outlots designated for future development have access to corridors such as public right of way for City of Fruita sewer extensions if they occur in the future. All other utilities can be found adjacent to the site and are available for provision of services to the development that will be engineered in detail at Final Plan. 2. the proposed subdivision will not result in significant and demonstrable adverse impacts on the natural environment, including air, water, noise, storm water management, wildlife and vegetation; Criteria can be met by proposed Concept Plan. 95% of the tires have already been removed from the floodplain and the Big Salt Wash corridor and efforts are ongoing to remove the remaining tires. Some minor lot line revisions must be made in response to comments from review agencies to pull the lots from the hazard area / wildlife corridor (i.e. Big Salt Wash). The remaining tires shall be removed and the minor revisions can be done as a required condition prior to Final Plan approval.

5. 3.1.17 | General Approval Criteria In addition to specific approval criteria listed for each type of development review process, the Decision-making Body shall consider if the proposal: A. complies with all applicable standards, provisions, and the Purposes (Section 1.5), of this Land Development Code; Criteria is, or can be, met by proposed Concept Plan. B. is consistent with review agency comments; Criteria can be met by proposed Concept Plan.

6. 11.4.1 | Withhold Permits The County may deny or withhold all permits, certificates or other forms of authorization on any land or structure or improvements thereon upon which there is an uncorrected violation of a provision of this Land Development Code, or of a condition or qualification of a permit, certificate, approval or other authorization previously granted by the County, until the violation is corrected. This enforcement provision shall apply regardless of whether the current owner or applicant is responsible for the violation

5

156 in question. The County may deny or withhold all permits, certificates or other forms of authorization on any land or structure or improvements owned or being developed by a person who owns, developed or otherwise caused an uncorrected violation of this Land Development Code, until the violation is corrected. This provision shall apply regardless of whether the property for which the permit or other approval is sought is the property in violation. Concept Plan provides no vested rights and further steps in the development process exist that provide the County authority to use the leverage of approval to ensure the code violation is taken care of in accordance with the Remedies and Enforcement Powers laid out in Section 11.4 of the Land Development Code. Even though the issue regarding tires on the site has been documented for several years, the applicant invested significant resources to rectify the issue by moving the tires and has been working with County and State officials toward a viable solution in recent months as the project simultaneously moved forward in the development process. Considering the improvement that has been made on site and the progress made with the State toward the removal of the tires using a program designed for this type of scenario, it seems reasonable that the County could utilize Section 11.4.2 regarding permits approved with conditions and get the same intended results of remedy of the code violation. “11.4.2 | Permits Approved with Conditions Instead of withholding or denying a permit or other authorization (as described in Section 11.4.1), the County may grant such authorization subject to the condition that the violation be corrected.” What does the County gain by denying the Concept Plan that justifies the burden of time, efficiency, and expense of the applicant, County Staff, and review agencies to have to start the concept plan process all over again?

Summary: All of the issues revealed through the course of the Concept Plan can and will be resolved prior to Final Plan approval and subsequent granting of vested rights. No development or permanent privilege will be given to the applicant or the site prior to Final Plan. The Final Plan process will allow for public and official review of the plans and has sufficient tools built into the process that ensures any items listed as a condition of approval at the Concept Plan have been satisfied. A decision to uphold the Denial of concept plan results in the burden of unnecessary duplication of time and resources being placed on the applicant, County Staff, and associated review agencies by starting the development process over at the beginning, whereas, approving the appeal upon being updated on the progress and options available to meet the issues identified by Staff would promote the continuation of efforts and resources being pursued to address the code violation of tires on the site and provide the economic development of job creation and housing opportunities by keeping the development process reasonable and efficient, without giving up any authority to ensure the issues are resolved before any vested rights or privilege is granted to the applicant or the property.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please motion to approve the Appeal and remand the Concept Plan back to Planning Commission to consider approval with conditions.

Regards,

Keith Ehlers Land Planning Representative

6

157 RESOLUTION

158

RESOLUTION NO. ______Planning Department File PRO2015-0078 CPA

UPHOLDING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO DENY THE DOUBLE CREEK ESTATES CONCEPT PLAN LOCATED AT 1255 17 ½ ROAD, FRUITA

WHEREAS, Dave Kotz of SGM appealed an administrative decision for Design/Engineering LLC to deny a Concept Plan application for a 16-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential Reserve zoning district on property described on Exhibit A attached; and

WHEREAS, the staff recommendation regarding the appeal was made in a project review dated June 5, 2015 updated on June 15, 2015; and

WHEREAS, a public workshop was held with the Mesa County Planning Commission on June 11, 2015; and

WHEREAS, the public hearing before the Mesa County Board of County Commissioners was held on June 23, 2015.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOAD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF MESA FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

THAT public notice requirements of Section 3.1.8 of the Mesa County Land Development Code have been met; and

THAT the administrative appeal review and action requirements of Section 3.6.6 of the Mesa County Land Development Code have been met; and

THAT evidence was not provided to demonstrate that an error was made in the decision to deny the Concept Plan; and

THAT the Concept Plan did not meet the approval criteria for Urban Residential Reserve Standards in Section 6.5, Irrigation Standards in Section 7.12.2, Hazard Areas in Section 7.6.1, the Concept Plan Standards in Section 3.6.3.G.1 & 2, and the General Approval Criteria in Section 3.1.17 A & B of the Land Development Code; and

THAT the property owner has an uncorrected Code violation on the subject property involving the unauthorized storage and burial of automobile tires (Code Enforcement Case No. CE2009-0167).

Page 1 of 3 159 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN THE COUNTY OF MESA, STATE OF COLORADO:

THAT the administrative decision by the Planning Director to deny Double Creek Estates Concept Plan, File 2014-0069 CP, is hereby upheld.

PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF June, 2015.

______Rose Pugliese, Chair Board of Mesa County Commissioners

ATTEST:

______Sheila Reiner Mesa County Clerk and Recorder

Page 2 of 3 160

EXHIBIT A Planning Department File PRO2015-0078 CPA

Page 3 of 3 161 DIA RESOLUTIONS

162 RESOLUTION NO. ______Planning Department File C154-78

RELEASING PROPERTY FROM SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT AND GUARANTEE

Racquet Club Apartments

WHEREAS, Irving Biers, as the developer of the Racquet Club Apartments, guaranteed certain improvements as recorded in Book 1230, Pages 799-801 in the records of the County Clerk and Recorder for the County of Mesa, Colorado, and

WHEREAS, the current owner of the development desires to be released from the Subdivision Improvements Agreement and guarantee as recorded above.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF MESA FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

That the improvements for the Racquet Club Apartments, consisting of water mains, on-site water supply, and fire hydrants, have been completed satisfactorily as evidenced by staff review of project documentation and as documented in the Planning Department File.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF MESA:

That Irving Biers is released from the Subdivision Improvements Agreement and Security as recorded above in the records of the County Clerk and Recorder for the County of Mesa, Colorado.

PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 23rd day of June, 2015.

______Rose Pugliese, Chair Board of Mesa County Commissioners ATTEST:

______Sheila Reiner Clerk and Recorder

163 RESOLUTION NO. ______Planning Department File C70-97

RELEASING PROPERTY FROM DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT AND GUARANTEE

KN Energy Park

WHEREAS, KN Energy, Inc., as the developer of KN Energy Park, guaranteed certain improvements as recorded in Book 2338, Pages 1-9 in the records of the County Clerk and Recorder for the County of Mesa, Colorado and,

WHEREAS, the developer desired to be released from the Development Improvements Agreement and guarantee as recorded above.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF MESA FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

That the improvements for KN Energy Park, consisting of improvements to 21 1/2 Road, water lines, and fire hydrants, have been completed satisfactorily as evidenced by staff inspections and as documented in the Planning Department File.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF MESA:

That KN Energy, Inc. is released from the Development Improvements Agreement and Security as recorded above in the records of the County Clerk and Recorder for the County of Mesa, Colorado.

PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 23rd day of June, 2015.

______Rose Pugliese, Chair Board of Mesa County Commissioners ATTEST:

______Sheila Reiner Clerk and Recorder

164