board of mesa county commissioners · 7/22/2014 · 1. 2014-0029 cup two sons kennel conditional...

**PLEASE NOTE: THERE IS LIMITED FREE PUBLIC PARKING ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER

OF 6TH

STREET AND WHITE AVENUE**

AGENDATUESDAY

JULY 22, 2014

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, May 13, 2014

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):

1. 2014-0091CPA DOUBLE CREEK ESTATES CONCEPT PLAN APPEAL

Property Owner(s):Design/Engineering LLC

Representative(s): David M. Kotz, PE, SGM, Inc

Location: 1255 17 ½ Road

Zoning: AFT

Planner: Linda Dannenberger, (970)244-1771, [email protected]

Request: Appeal of an administrative decision that determined the application

incomplete for the Double Creek Estates Major Subdivision Concept Plan

Staff Recommendation: To uphold staffs’ decision

Board of County Commissioners Hearing Continued to September 30, 2014

WITHDRAWN ITEM(S):

NONE

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

Board of MESA COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS Colorado

BOCC – Land Use JULY 22, 2014 of 3

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. 2014-0029 CUP TWO SONS KENNEL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

Property Owner(s):William Emmons

Representative(s): Jesse Miltier

Location: 3645 Front Street, Palisade

Zoning: AFT

Planner: [email protected], (970)244-1771

Request: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a private outdoor animal

boarding facility with up to 24 outdoor kennel areas.

Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

MCPC Recommendation: Approval with Conditions, 6-1

BRIEFING(S):

NONE

RESOLUTION(S):

1. 2014-0058 RZ

APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO REZONE A PORTION OF THE EDKA LAND COMPANY, LLC

PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3271½ F 3/10 ROAD, CLIFTON FROM THE RSF-4 DISTRICT TO

THE RMF-8 DISTRICT

mailto:[email protected]

BOCC – Land Use JULY 22, 2014 of 3

2. 2014-0064 ZM

APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR A ZONE MAP AMENDMENT FOR THE JOYCE LUSTER

TALLMAN LLC PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2729 & 2731 HIGHWAY 50, GRAND JUNCTION

TO CORRECT THE ZONING FROM THE PUD DISTRICT TO THE RSF-4 DISTRICT

3. 2014-0066 VA

APPROVAL OF THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF RIGHT–OF-WAY LOCATED ADJACENT

TO TAX PARCEL # 2967-141-00-049 AT THE INTERSECTION OF COFFMAN ROAD AND

GAYLORD STREET, WHITEWATER

ROAD PETITION(S):

NONE

UNSCHEDULED BUSINESS:

Please present your comments within ten (10) minutes.

ADJOURN

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

CERTIFICATION OF POSTING

On July 16, 2014 at 10:00 a.m., Stephanie Reecy did post the above AGENDA as public

notice of the July 22, 2014 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

http://www.mesacounty.us/BoCCagendas/

of 6

MAY 13, 2014

Audio

CALL MEETING TO ORDER

At 9:06 a.m., Chair John Justman called to order a regular Land Use meeting of

the Board of Mesa County Commissioners at the Mesa County Courthouse,

Commissioners Public Hearing Room, 544 Rood Avenue, Grand Junction,

Colorado. Those present included Commissioner Rose Pugliese; Commissioner

Steven Acquafresca; David Frankel, Acting County Attorney; Linda

Dannenberger, Planning Division Director; and, Lori Westermire, Clerk to the

Board. Minutes transcribed by Lori Westermire.

DELETIONS FROM AGENDA

Commissioner Pugliese requested that the minutes for April 22, 2014 include

additional discussion which transpired during the hearing, and requested the

minutes be continued until a future hearing.

LAND USE

HEARING ITEMS (03:32)

2014-0032 CUP BLACK HILLS DEBEQUE STATION WATER REUSE FACILITY

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

Property Owner(s): Red Rock Gathering Company LLC

Representative(s): Shawn Higley, WWC Engineering

Location: 4325 V 2/10 RD

Zoning: AFT

Planner: Randy Price, Senior Planner

Request a conditional use permit for a centralized produced water reuse facility

for oil and gas wells. Staff Recommended Approval with Conditions and Mesa

County Planning Commission (MCPC) recommended Approval with Conditions,

6-1. The project can meet or has met the applicable criteria of the code with

conditions of approval.

Randy Price, Senior Planner, entered into record the Conditional Use Permit, the

project review, the 2000 Mesa County Land Development Code, Mesa County

Land Use Plan, a Power Point Presentation as Exhibit A, and email

correspondence from Susie Kuhn as Exhibit D.

Minutes

http://www.mesacounty.us/webcast/20140513/archive.wma

of 6

Randy Price provided an overview of the project, its location and surrounding

land uses, including pipelines and compressor facilities. He stated the site is

40 acres, although the Black Hills facility will occupy approximately 23 acres of

the 40 acre site. There are two residences within 1/2 mile, and there are nine

residents within 1 mile radius of the proposed facility. One residence will have

views of the facility, but views will be limited due to an intervening ridge, and

pinyon and juniper trees.

The project includes three ponds, and a pumping station enclosed in a 900

square-foot building. Existing residential structures and a barn will be

removed. A 2,856 square-foot office will be constructed and a maximum of 10

employees will work at the office. The location is close to gas gathering lines

that are used to transport water to and from the drill sites. The Kobe Pipeline

was previously approved and is now partially constructed. The proximity to the

Kobe water pipeline will allow access to a raw water supply from the Colorado

River. The raw water will be used in the fracing operation, and raw water and

produced water will be stored in the ponds.

Randy Price summarized advantages of the centralized water handling facility,

including the reduced need for fresh water from the Colorado River, reuse of

production and frac water, the proximity to three phase power to run pumps,

and the reduction of truck traffic hauling fresh water to wells. He said the

disadvantages include the facility's location on privately owned land, the need

to control emissions from Volatile Organic Compound (VOCs), visual impacts,

control wildlife ingress, and the potential odor from anaerobic breakdown of

organic compounds in water. Mr. Price said the applicant will pre-treat water

that comes back into the ponds as required by the Colorado Department of

Public and Environment (CDPHE). In order to reduce visual impacts the

applicant will construct berms, and paint on the structures will blend into the

surrounding topography.

Commissioner Acquafresca asked why raw river water is being supplied, and if

the pond covers are permeable and would contain odors. Randy Price

explained the initial fracing operation needs a source of water since there will

not be produce water or frac flow-back water. Mr. Price stated the pond covers

are tiles that are not permeable, and that they interlock and can reduce

evaporation by 95%.

Commissioner Pugliese asked if a solvent could be added during pre-treatment

to reduce odor in the ponds. Randy Price stated the initial odor would be from

petroleum, and some of the water will be treated at the well site with the use of

separators. He explained the oil and water will separate, the oil will be

siphoned and put in a condensate tank. The water will go into the pipeline to

this facility and then into treatment tanks that will further separate the organic

compounds. He stated that depending on the emissions permit, additional

of 6

treatment may be required. Commissioner Pugliese asked how often CDPHE

comes out to measure the air emissions. Mr. Price stated CDPHE will take a

sample of what goes into the ponds to determine the level of hydrocarbons and

will then determine the treatment needed to reduce the level of hydrocarbons.

He stated the ponds will also be regulated by the Colorado Oil and Gas

Conservation Commission (COGCC), which has control of ponds that are

dedicated to one operator. Commissioner Pugliese asked for the name of

closest residence and Mr. Price said it is Kim Heidel.

Commissioner Pugliese asked if the road maintenance agreement would

address comments concerning the design of the internal site roads to handle

the longest vehicles. Randy Price said the maintenance agreement does not

address the road design, but the applicant is required to address the comments

and the road design. Commissioner Pugliese asked how the concerns will be

addressed, and Mr. Price said the applicant will address all the comments and

concerns from the reviewing agencies and Planning will determine if they are

adequate before issuing approval of the site plan.

Commissioner Acquafresca said odors are of concern given the proximity to

residences and the Town of De Beque and he requested the "Best Available

Technology" condition as a stand-alone condition. He asked Randy Price to

elaborate on State of Colorado requirements for emissions that would result in

odors, and the processes for monitoring and enforcement. Randy Price stated

the CDPHE Air Quality Division has emission limits that have become more

stringent and more pretreatment equipment is being used to reduce

hydrocarbons. Commissioner Acquafresca asked how odor requirements apply

to sewer smell from anaerobic conditions and Mr. Price said its complaint

driven, a residence can contact the COGCC or Mesa County to file the

complaint.

Linda Dannenberger informed the Board that all CUPs have challenges that have

to be mitigated or reduced in order to become more compatible with the area.

She said the Conditional Use Criteria address these challenges and require them

to be mitigated or reduced.

Public Comment

Those giving public comment included: Kim Heidel, neighboring resident, 4311

V 2/10 Road, De Beque; and Daryl and Susie Kuhn, 4270 V 2/10 Road, De

Beque.

Concerns raised during public comment included: Views of the facility from

neighboring residential uses, assurance facility will be used only for water

storage and not for waste water storage into the future, odors, trapped gas

under pond covers, danger to health, safety to dogs due to ponds, bright

of 6

lighting at night and during construction periods, lack of privacy, lack of

maintenance on Mesa County Road V 2/10, and need for V 2/10 to be upgraded

to different classification.

Applicant representatives, Shawn Higley, 1275 Maple Street, Helena, Montana;

and Brett Hurlbut, 1515 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, addressed the

concerns raised during the public comment period, and provided additional

project information. They discussed the surrounding land uses, existing gas

pipelines, and centralized location of the facility to minimize impacts.

Chair Justman asked if the ponds will have a continual exchange of water and if

odor from the facility can be controlled. Shawn Higley confirmed the ponds will

continually have water in them and that the odor can be controlled. He stated

the primary way of getting rid of the odor is to evaporate waste water from the

pond, and said there will be an accumulation of different oils and salts that

become anaerobic, which causes the odor. He explained measures that will be

conducted to reduce odors, including aeration in the ponds, pretreatment of

flow-back water with carbon filters, and removal of petroleum hydrocarbon and

VOCs before the water goes into the ponds. He stated the goal is to keep the

water as clean as possible.

Commissioner Acquafresca asked Shawn Higley how many years the facility will

be in operation and Shawn Higley stated about 20 years. Commissioner

Acquafresca asked who is required to maintain V 2/10 Road and Randy Price

confirmed it is a county road. He stated there is an existing maintenance

agreement with Red Rocks and Black Hills will be required to enter into a

maintenance agreement with Mesa County. Mr. Price confirmed the road needs

more gravel. Commissioner Acquafresca requested adding a new condition

regarding the control of odors. Randy Price added Condition #15 stating

"Odors will be controlled through best available technology."

Commissioner Pugliese asked if a privacy fence would be constructed as

requested by Kim Heidel and Brett Hurlbut confirmed a fence can be developed.

She requested that wording be added to Condition #10 to ensure visual impacts

through fencing and screening would be accomplished on behalf of the nearest

resident. She suggested verbiage at the end of Condition #9 be changed to

include "with strong consideration to maintaining local access" so that the road

maintenance agreement with the applicant and Red Rocks will be a

consideration to make sure the road is maintained.

STEVE ACQUAFRESCA MOVED, ROSE PUGLIESE SECONDED AND MOTION

UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE 2014-0032 CUP BLACK HILLS DE BEQUE

STATION WATER REUSE FACILITY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS

ONE THROUGH FIFTEEN AS MODIFIED.

of 6

The Board took a break at 11:34 a.m. Chair Justman rejoined the meeting at

11:40 a.m.

2014-0033 CUP CONCORD PRE-TREATMENT FACILITY AT CLIFTON

SANITATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

Property Owner(s): Clifton Sanitation District

Representative(s): Tim Brown, Concord Produced Water Services

Location: 3215 D Rd. Clifton

Zoning: AFT

Planner: Randy Price, Senior Planner

Request a conditional use permit for a facility operated by Concord Produced

Water Services to be located at the Clifton Sanitation Wastewater Treatment

Plant to pretreat oil and gas produced water prior to passing the effluent to

Clifton Sanitation. Staff recommended Approval with Conditions and MCPC

Recommended Approval with Conditions, 6-1. The project can meet or has met

the applicable criteria of the code with conditions of approval.

Randy Price entered into record the project file, project review, the Mesa County

Land Development Code, Mesa County Land Use Plan, a Power Point

Presentation as Exhibit A, and an email correspondence from Robert W. and

Dianna B. Beltz as Exhibit B.

Randy Price provided an overview of the project and its location. He stated the

site is two acres and was previously used as bus parking. The facility would

receive wastes from multiple users and there will be approximately 25 to 35,

150 barrel trucks per day. Hours of operation for truck delivery will be 8 a.m.

to 6:00 p.m., seven days per week. Volatile organic compounds and

hydrocarbons will be removed through an oxidation process. A filter cake will

be produced and will be disposed of at the landfill.

Chair Justman asked how long it will take to unload a truck and the applicant

representative, Ryan Hutcherson, stated about 15 minutes. Chair Justman

asked if jake brakes would be used and Mr. Hutcherson stated he did not think

jake brakes would be required.

Commissioner Pugliese asked if the lights at the plant will be in accordance

with Mesa County Code, and Randy Price stated full cut-off lighting will be

required as part of the Land Development Code. She asked if a lighting plan

would be submitted and Ryan Hutcherson confirmed a plan would be submitted

and explained that lights at night would be limited.

Commissioner Acquafresca asked if hydrocarbons removed from the water

could be sold and Ryan Hutcherson confirmed they could be.

of 6

ROSE PUGLIESE MOVED, STEVE ACQUAFRESCA SECONDED AND MOTION

UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A

FACILITY OPERATED BY CONCORD PRODUCED WATER SERVICES TO BE LOCATED

AT THE CLIFTON SANITATION WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT TO PRETREAT

OIL AND GAS PRODUCED WATER PRIOR TO PASSING THE EFFLUENT TO CLIFTON

SANITATION.

RESOLUTIONS (0:37:51)

STEVE ACQUAFRESCA MOVED, ROSE PUGLIESE SECONDED AND MOTION

UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS: 2014-

0003 CUP APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MINOR

ENTERTAINMENT EVENTS FOR NO MORE THAN 10 WEDDING EVENTS PER YEAR

FOR UP TO 200 GUESTS IN THE AFT DISTRICT UNDER THE USE TABLE OF

SECTION 5.1 OF THE MESA COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AT 230 31

3/10 ROAD; AND 2012-0165 CUP CORRECTION OF RESOLUTION MCM 2013-019

APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF A

VETERINARY CLINIC, INCLUDING OUTDOOR CARE OF ANIMALS, ON A PARCEL IN

THE AFT ZONE DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1275 13½ ROAD, LOMA, CO (Resolutions

on file at the Mesa County Clerk's Office: 2014-0003 CUP recorded in Book

5599, at Page 397, Reception No. 2689679, Resolution File No. 2014-114; and

2012-0165 CUP CORRECTION recorded in Book 5599, at Page 401, Reception

No. 2689680, Resolution File No. 2014-115).

For complete details on any item click on the audio link at the

beginning of the document.

ADJOURN

With no further business to come before the Board, Chair Justman adjourned the

meeting at 12:18 p.m.

Sheila Reiner,

Mesa County Clerk & Recorder

_____________________________ ______________________________

Lori Westermire Chair John Justman

Clerk to the Board

Verbatim digital files of the Commissioners' Proceedings of

May 13, 2014, are on file in the Mesa County Clerk's Office.

Please note that times listed are approximate.

LAND USE ITEMS

July 22, 2014 9:00 A.M.

544 Rood Avenue

Grand Junction, Co.

1

Project # Project Name Planner Status2014-0029 CUP Two Sons Kennel Conditional Use Permit Linda OK2014-0091 CP Double Creek Estates Appeal Concept Plan Christie Continued until 9/30

Project # Project Name Planner Status2014-0073 CP Mesa County Fairgrounds PUD Amendment Concept Plan Christie OK

Project # Project Name Planner Status2014-0074 CP Gateway Canyons PUD Amendment Concept Plan Linda OK

Project # Project Name Planner Status2014-0097 CUP Mountain View Farms Conditional Use Permit Randy OK2014-0187 CUP Western Slope Flagstone Condtional Use Permit Amendment Randy OK

Project # Project Name Planner Status2014-0091 CP Double Creek Estates Appeal Concept Plan Christie OK

BoCC Rolling Calendar

August 12, 2014 Board of County Commissioner's Hearing - 544 Rood Ave - Hearing Room

July 22, 2014 Board of County Commissioner's Hearing - 544 Rood Ave - Hearing Room

September 30, 2014 Board of County Commissioner's Hearing - 544 Rood Ave - Hearing Room

September 16, 2014 Board of County Commissioner's Hearing - 544 Rood Ave - Hearing Room

August 26, 2014 Board of County Commissioner's Hearing - 544 Rood Ave - Hearing Room

2

Index/

Location

Map

3

INDEX MESA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

LAND USE HEARING July 22, 2014

HEARING ITEMS: 1. 2014-0029 CUP TWO SONS KENNEL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - page 7

**ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE**

Project Review………………………………………………………………….…..White Planning Commission Minutes…………………………………………………...…Pink Review Agency Comments……………………………………………...Yellow or Buff Public Comments…………………………………………………………………….Blue Applicant Information…………………………………………………………..…..Green

4

!

1

Location Map

4BoCC Hearing Items

July 22, 2014

10 0 10 20 305Miles

5

PROJECT

REVIEW

6

MESA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Administration - Building - Engineering – Road and Bridge

Traffic - Planning - Solid Waste Management

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

PROJECT REPORT

UPDATED JULY 15, 2014

2014-0029 CUP TWO SONS KENNEL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Property Owner(s): William Emmons Representative(s): Jesse Miltier Location: 3645 Front Street, Palisade Parcel #: 2941-042-07-002 Zoning: AFT Planner: [email protected], (970)244-1771 Request: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a private outdoor animal

boarding facility with up to 24 outdoor kennel areas.

7


II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicant, Mr. Jesse Miltier, has an arrangement with the property owner to house 18 sled dogs on the subject parcel. He has asked to be allowed to keep up to 24 dogs there at any one time. The existing 18 dogs are provided igloo style doghouses and one wooden doghouse which are lined up where the site is fenced along the Grimsley property directly north. The dogs are chained to heavy circular stakes close to the igloos. The stakes allow them to move about within a 4-5 feet radius without getting tangled. Mr. Miltier states that all dogs under two years of age (half of the dogs) have been surgically debarked, and the other dogs that are over eight years old are quiet for most of the time. A row of trees shades the dogs in the late afternoon per a site visit conducted by staff at 4:30 pm on June 6. A second site visit was made at 10:15 a.m. on June 11 during mid-day sun showed that most of the dog spaces were shaded. The 4 spaces on the eastern side did not have good shade for the entire day and could use some cover.

June 6, 2014 4:15 pm

The Project Planner visited the site on June 11 with Penny McCarty, Director of Animal Services for Mesa County. Mr. Emmons, the property owner, greeted us on the property and stated that the dogs do not bark much. He told us that he and his wife are home most of the time, and confirmed that Mr. Miltier or his backup caretaker feed and water the dogs every night. Mr. Miltier has requested approval for 6 more kennels.

8

History

This application is in response to a complaint received by the Code Compliance Division on May 15, 2013 related to barking dogs on the property. A Compliance Officer visited the site on May 22, 2013 and found that the number of adult dogs on the property exceeded five (5) as allowed in the Land Development Code. A Request for Voluntary Compliance was issued June 19, 2013. Subsequent follow-up calls and meetings occurred through April, 2014. The property owner is currently on a compliance plan which stipulates submittal of an application for an appropriate permit. A pre-application meeting was held with a senior planner on February 11, 2014.

The Mesa County Land Development Code states the following related to keeping dogs on residential properties:

“5.3.4 | Animals Unless otherwise expressly defined or identified as a principal use, the keeping of animals shall be considered an allowed accessory use, subject to the provisions of this section.

A. Household Pets Household pets inclusive of, but not limited to, dogs and cats shall be permitted in all zoning

districts allowing for residential use, provided that no more than five (5) animals over four (4) months of age are kept by the occupant of any residential unit. Kennels, boarding facilities, and commercial activities are not an allowed accessory use. This provision does not apply to tropical fish, small rodent animals, e.g., gerbils, hamsters, and small birds kept as pets, unless raised for commercial purposes, kept outdoors, or kept in an accessory structure.

B. Prohibited Animals

The keeping of Nondomestic or Exotic Animals shall not be allowed as an accessory use.”

Section 5.3.4.A states that no more than 5 adult household pets may be kept on a residential property as an accessory use. In order for the applicant to receive permission to keep the number of dogs he desires, a conditional use permit for a non-commercial kennel must be obtained. The Code contains the following definition of a kennel in Chapter 12:

“Kennel: Any place or premises used in whole or in part for the purpose of keeping, boarding, breeding or sale of domesticated dogs and/or cats in which five (5) or more domestic animals exist, and all of which exceed four (4) months in age, to include animal pounds and shelters.”

III. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING

The property is located approximately 785 feet from Palisade town limits to the south and 1,187 feet from town limits to the east. It was platted in 2000 as Lot 2 of the Keenan Minor Subdivision. The access is a gravel driveway from Front Street.

9

The surrounding properties are zoned AFT and occupied by homes and small farms. The property to the north of the subject parcel is owned by John Grimsley and received approval for a Conditional Use Permit for a salvage yard and auto repair facility in 1989. The Palisade Future Land Use Plan classifies the Grimsley parcel as ‘Industrial’. The County’s Rural Future Land Use Map designates the subject property and adjoining parcels as R/A 10 (Residential/Agricultural 10 acres with maximum density of 1 unit per 5 acres).

County Zoning Map

Mesa County Future Land Use Map

This property is situated between Palisade and the Palisade/Grand Junction Cooperative Planning Area. The Cooperative Planning Area (buffer) line extends from 34 Road to 36 Road, approximately ½ mile to the west.

10

IV. COMPLIANCE WITH MESA COUNTY CODE REQUIREMENTS: Section 3.8.7 an Section 3.1.17of the Mesa County Land Development Code were used to evaluate this application. 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 kennels establish a significantly higher concentration of dogs in an outdoor setting than is allowed for typical residential use. Except for the salvage yard use to the north, the area is predominantly residential uses on parcels that average a little more than 5 acres south of Front Street, with a range of .5 acre to 10.7 acres. The dogs will occupy the kennel areas all day every day unless the owner takes them for exercise or training off site. Access to the kennels is from an existing gravel driveway from Front Street. There does not appear to be any obstructions to sight distance. Mr. Miltier visits the site once a day in the early evening and parks within the flagpole area at the entrance to the kennels. The kennels were clean but manure needs to be continually cleaned up and disposed of to not create odors and pests. Dust does not seem to be an issue. Noise related to barking appears to be under control; the owner indicated that he expects that to happen. Ms. McCarty states that a few minutes of barking several times a day is normal for dogs – it’s the prolonged barking that may indicate a problem and generates complaints. Per the Animal Services website “nuisance barking is considered to be at least thirty minutes of unprovoked barking within a 24 hour period.” The kennels area is fenced with chain link on the northern property line and view of the kennels appears to be mostly obstructed by a row of trees that also provides shade for the dogs for most of the day. There is a pickup truck parked at the west end of the kennels, and it blocks the view from the house to the west. A portion of the west property line should be fenced with an opaque privacy fence to properly and more permanently eliminate the kennels from view. Fencing views of people and animals on the neighbors’ properties may also reduce barking. No additional structures are requested for this use. This criterion can be met with the recommended conditions of approval.

11

Photograph Looking East

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. The site does have domestic water available to water the dogs. A spigot is located near the gate into the kennel area (to the right of the wooden dog house in the picture above). No other utilities are required and the site is not lit at night. Dog waste is either buried or placed in the owner’s pasture. Signage is not necessary or requested. This criterion is met. C. Access will be provided as necessary to prevent traffic hazards and to minimize traffic congestion in public streets and alleys.

12

An access to the existing residence has been in place from Front Street for many years. Since the traffic to the site occurs once or twice per day and the owners do not leave the property often, it does not exceed the expected number of trips for a household of 10 per day.

This criterion has been met. D. Adequate assurances of on-going maintenance have been provided. This criterion merits the closest review. The welfare of the animals, the number of dogs requested in one location, and the concerns of the neighbors regarding their care require on-going maintenance to be addressed. The owner, Mr. Miltier, has run sled dogs as a hobby for 35 years and says that he understands their care; however, this is a fairly new location. Animal Services has responded to the concerns of neighbors several times, and they report that the dogs have had the basic requirements of water and shelter and do not appear to be abused. On the staff site visit on June 11, however, it was noted that the eastern four kennels did not have continuous shade for the entire day. The visit was made at 10:30 a.m., and the sun was not high in the sky at that time (see the picture below). This can be remedied by installing a shade structure for these areas. A Citizens for Animal Protection website offers these common sense tips for leaving dogs outdoors in the heat:

“If you must keep your dog outside with no doggy door, make sure to:

Provide a continuously shaded area - a dog house sitting in the sun at any time during the day is

not sufficient

13

Provide plenty of water in a shady area - put out an extra bowl of water in case one bowl is

accidentally spilled

Place a children's sturdy plastic wading pool with water in a shaded area (if the dog is small,

ensure he can get out of the pool) Never leave a dog alone in a yard with a human swimming pool.

Have a water proof covered shelter that a dog may retreat to in the event of a rain storm. The

shelter should be large enough for the dog to stand in without their head touching the top and

should be long enough to allow the dog to lie down comfortably. It also should be raised an inch or two off the ground so it does not sit in water”

The following are tips from the ASPCA website: “Made in the Shade Pets can get dehydrated quickly, so give them plenty of fresh, clean water when it's hot outdoors. Make sure your pets have a shady place to get out of the sun, be careful to not over-exercise them, and keep them indoors when it's extremely hot. Know the Warning Signs Symptoms of overheating in pets include excessive panting or difficulty breathing, increased heart and respiratory rate, drooling, mild weakness, stupor or even collapse. They can also include seizures, bloody diarrhea and vomit along with an elevated body temperature of over 104 degrees. Animals with flat faces, like Pugs and Persian cats, are more susceptible to heat stroke since they cannot pant as effectively. These pets, along with the elderly, the overweight, and those with heart or lung diseases, should be kept cool in

air-conditioned rooms as much as possible.”

14

http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/cat-care/dehydration

Based on the comments of Animal Services, requirements for safekeeping of animals, and based on the June 11, 2014 site visit, the applicant shall construct shelters for the eastern 4 or 5 kennels to provide shade for the kennel areas during all hours of the day.

Other maintenance concerns include cleaning up animal waste and committing to daily watering and feeding of the dogs. The owner visits the site in the evenings to fill the dogs’ water buckets, feed them, and as it appears, to clean up dog waste. The owner must commit to preventing drinking water from freezing in the winter as well. Animal Services uses the following narrative to define animal neglect:

“Every animal must be provided with water, food, protection from the elements, or other care generally considered to be normal, usual and accepted for an animal's health and well-being consistent with the species, breed and type of animal.”

This criterion can be met with the conditions of approval. E. Any significant adverse impacts on the natural environment will be mitigated to the maximum extent practical, including whether soils and geologic suitability are adequate for the proposed use, and whether prevailing winds might cause adverse impacts on site and off-site. No significant impacts to the environment are anticipated from the use of this property for dog kennels. This criterion has been met.

F. There is a need for the use on a community wide basis. There may be an opportunity in the community for dog sledding as a sport. However, this particular use is primarily a benefit to the dog owner. It is recommended that the Conditional Use Permit be granted to the current property owner for the existing dog owner only. If either party vacates the property or withdraws from the agreement that they have, the dogs would have to be removed from the property along with any improvements placed there for their benefit, and the CUP would expire. This criterion can be met with the conditions of approval. 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; As discussed in the report, several of the Conditional Use Permit review criteria can be met with conditions of approval. Maintenance of the kennel areas and the dogs and limits on the use are the primary areas of concern. B. Is consistent with review agency comments;

No concerns have been identified in review agency comments that could not be addressed with the proposed conditions of approval.

15

This criterion can be met with compliance with conditions.

C. Is consistent with applicable intergovernmental agreements (IGA) between the County and other entities.

The project is subject to MCA 2009-103 between Mesa County and Palisade. The Town was provided with a review agency package and responded with some concerns. V. PUBLIC COMMENTS Telephone calls from two area residents were received. One caller was concerned that the kennels would be used for breeding puppies and stated that many times outdoor “puppy mills” are inhumane. The other callers, Mr. and Mrs. Peterman, state that feeding times are very noisy. They plan to present a petition from the neighborhood, stating that many of the residents do not support the application. VI. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS A report of review agency comments is included in the Project Report packet. There were no comments that would cause a recommendation of denial. VII. PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions The Planning Division recommends approval of the application as submitted with the following conditions.

1. All review agency comments not in conflict with the following conditions of approval shall be addressed.

2. The kennels shall be limited to 18 15 in number, not the 24 requested, due, in part, to the fact that they are located in a residential/agricultural area. If the applicant desires to keep more than 15 dogs, he must apply for an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit and obtain appropriate permits from the Colorado Department of Agriculture.

3. The applicant shall, within two weeks of approval, construct shelters for the eastern 4 kennels to provide shade for the dogs during all daylight hours OR move all the kennels to the west farther into the shade to achieve the same result. Shade, other than the dog houses, shall be provided to all animals continually.

4. Privacy fencing shall be constructed to block the view of the kennels from the west within 3 months of approval.

5. Sight lighting shall be unobtrusive and no flood lights will be used on the site. Lighting must be at a minimum full cut-off and in accordance with Section 7.6.7 of the Mesa County Land Development Code.

6. Every animal must be provided with water, food, protection from the elements, or other care generally considered to be normal, usual and accepted for an animal's health and well-being consistent with the species, breed and type of animal on a daily basis.

7. All kennel dogs must be licensed as required by Mesa County. 8. The applicant shall consistently comply with all applicable provisions of the Mesa County

Land Development Code. 9. The applicant shall not significantly deviate from the site plan and documents submitted

with this application including the project narrative. Any modification or expansion of this

16

facility, not including minor modifications as determined by the Planning Director, shall require an amendment of the Conditional Use Permit.

10. This Conditional Use Permit does not run with the land. If either the dog owner or the property owner vacates the property or withdraws from the agreement that they have, the dogs and kennels will be removed from the property along with any improvements placed there for their benefit, and the CUP will expire.

The basis for this recommendation: The petition demonstrates compliance with the criterion in Section 3.8.7A and Section 3.1.17.A, of the Mesa County Land Development Code (2000, as amended) with the recommended conditions of approval.

REVIEW SUMMARY

Conditional Use Permit Criteria 3.8.7 Summary Conditions A. The proposed use is not significantly different if approved from adjacent uses in appearance, site design, and operating characteristics or adequately mitigates adverse impacts Can be met 2,3,4,5 B Facilities and services are available Is met C Access is provided to prevent traffic hazards and minimize traffic congestion Is met D Adequate assurances of on-going maintenance are provided Can be met 1,3,5,6,7,8 E Significant adverse impacts on the natural environment have been mitigated to the extent practical Is met F A need for the use on a community-wide basis has been established Can be met 2, 10 General Approval Criteria 3.1.17 A Compliance with applicable standards and provisions in the Land Development Code Can be met 1 through 10 B Consistency with review agency comments Can be met 1,3 C Consistency with applicable IGAs Has been met VIII. MCPC Recommendation (6/26/2014) Approval with a vote of 6 – 1 with Commissioner Page dissenting. IX. STAFF UPDATE: Mark Diebold, one of the residents in the area speaking at the Planning Commission hearing in opposition, received information from a kennel technician at Mesa County Animal Services about the Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act (PACFA) administered through the Colorado Department of Agriculture. Mr. Diebold alerted staff to the possibility that this agency might also require a permit. Staff immediately put the applicant in touch with the PACFA inspector, who met with the applicant in Grand Junction. The inspector has stated that a State permit is required for anyone who keeps more than 15 dogs and a separate permit is also required if the operator keeps litters of puppies. Mr. Miltier and Mr. Leach, PACFA inspector, spoke several times. Mr. Miltier amended his application on July 14, 2014 verbally to limit the number of his sled dog animals to 15 to stay

17

below the State requirement for a permit. He also has indicated that he will not have litters of puppies without the required permit. Therefore, several modifications have been suggested to the staff-recommended conditions of approval (see section VII above). X. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS decision: (7/22/2014)

18

HEARING NOTICE

20

AFTAFT

Two Sons Kennel Conditional Use Permit 2014-0029 CUP

June 9, 2014 Notification/Parcel Map

"

LegendLegend2500 ft. Buffer

Parcels

Roads

GJ/Palisade Buffer

Palisade

0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1Miles

Notification Buffer

2941-042-07-002

21

2014-0029 CUPTwo Sons Kennel

Notification Table

Page 1 of 4

PARCEL_NUM OWNER MAILING CITY ST ZIP2941-041-09-011 ANDERS KIMBERLEY R 840 SHIRAZ DR PALISADE CO 8152686502937-082-03-001 ANDERSON DONALD G 738 36 3/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-97432937-074-03-003 ARBUCKLE CHERYL A 3612 G RD PALISADE CO 815262941-042-00-054 ARNOLD MIKE J 3607 FRONT ST PALISADE CO 8152686112941-041-04-001 BENSON KAREN L 3655 FRONT ST PALISADE CO 81526-86122941-043-00-099 BERNHARD SUZAN B 3627 GRAND VALLEY CANAL PALISADE CO 81526-86792941-043-00-100 BERNHARD VICTOR M 3627 GRAND VALLEY CANAL PALISADE CO 81526-86792937-083-00-086 BERRY SHANE A PO BOX 832 CLIFTON CO 815202937-082-00-094 BLACK KENT H AND BLACK ARD 3649 G 4/10 RD PALISADE CO 815262941-041-09-010 BOLLINGER MARK 855 RAPID CREEK RD PALISADE CO 8152694002937-083-13-001 BOOTH JUSTIN T 199 RINCON DR GRAND JUNCCO 81503-22832941-043-00-097 BOWMAN PATRICIA L PO BOX 1392 PALISADE CO 81526-13922937-074-00-058 BRADFORD EVERETT 3628 G RD PALISADE CO 81526-87042941-042-01-001 BRADSHAW DANNY D 3635 G RD PALISADE CO 815262937-082-00-118 BROUGHTON JARRETT DAVIS 3681 G 4/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-87122941-042-06-001 BROWN CHRIS W 680 36 1/4 RD PALISADE CO 8152686172941-042-00-168 BRUCKNER EYER R 3613 FRONT ST PALISADE CO 815262941-044-00-167 BRYAN L NOLAND TRUST 3652 1/2 F RD PALISADE CO 81526-93242941-042-06-002 BURT DAVID CLYDE 678 36 1/4 RD PALISADE CO 81526-86172941-043-00-092 C & R ORCHARDS LLC 3620 F RD PALISADE CO 81526-93242937-082-00-025 CALHOON ARTHUR R PO BOX 908 PALISADE CO 81526-09082937-083-00-066 CALHOON DEANNA F 3648 G RD PALISADE CO 815262937-083-00-119 CAREY KEVIN B 3683 G 3/8 RD PALISADE CO 815262937-082-00-095 CARVER JEFFREY P 3651 G 4/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-87122941-041-09-006 CHERP YOGI A 828 SHIRAZ DR PALISADE CO 815262937-082-00-029 CRON ERICH L 3657 G 4/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-87122937-082-04-001 CROSS LAURALE M 396 ELK RUN RD NEW CASTLECO 8164795062937-083-12-003 DAVIS JAMI 3638 WHITE LILLY AVE PALISADE CO 81526-64002937-071-05-002 DAY BRIAN E 720 36 1/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-97442941-033-00-921 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES711 INDEPENDENT AVE GRAND JUNCCO 815052937-082-04-002 DICKEY JAMES K 3645 G 4/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-87122937-083-14-002 DIEBOLD MARK R PO BOX 113 PALISADE CO 81526-01132937-071-05-001 DIETRICH ANDREW M 726 36 1/10 RD PALISADE CO 815262937-074-00-129 DON & CAROL BRANTLEY LIVING PO BOX 40033 GRAND JUNCCO 81504-00332941-042-02-014 DONOVAN RORY 655 36 1/4 RD PALISADE CO 815262937-083-00-091 DRAPEAU RONALD A 3654 G RD PALISADE CO 81526-87052937-083-14-001 DUCY JEFFREY A 704 MOUNT LINCOLN ST PALISADE CO 8152686642941-042-00-004 DUPRE FAITH ALICE PO BOX 1008 PALISADE CO 81526-10082941-042-00-098 EARLEY WILLIAM CLYDE 674 36 1/4 RD PALISADE CO 81526-86172941-041-00-012 ELKINS RUTH 611 MOSS WAY PALISADE CO 815262941-042-01-003 ELLIS JOEL R 3631 G RD PALISADE CO 815262941-042-07-002 EMMONS WILLIAM C 3645 FRONT ST PALISADE CO 81526-86122937-082-03-005 FASKEN SCOTT DAVID 734 36 3/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-97432941-051-00-951 FIRST CHURCH OF THE NAZARENPO BOX 327 PALISADE CO 81526-03272937-082-00-116 FRANKLIN MATTHEW J PO BOX 1411 PALISADE CO 81526-14112941-042-00-073 FRITTS CHERYL KAY 3639 G RD PALISADE CO 81526-8702

22


Notification Table

Page 2 of 4

2937-074-00-057 FULLER JOHN H 3620 G RD PALISADE CO 81526-87042941-042-03-003 GENSCHORCK ROBERT W 3613 G RD UNIT C PALISADE CO 815262941-041-00-011 GONZALES JOANN S 3653 G RD PALISADE CO 81526-87022941-042-00-024 GRANT ROBERT C 3633 FRONT ST PALISADE CO 815262937-083-02-009 GRIFFITHS AMY J 3644 G RD PALISADE CO 815262941-042-00-023 GRIMSLEY JOHN R 3541 G RD PALISADE CO 815262941-042-00-063 GROSE FAMILY TRUST 14626 W CABALLERO DR SUN CITY WEAZ 85375-27372937-083-00-060 H & H HOLDINGS LLC PO BOX 265 PALISADE CO 815262937-082-03-007 HAAG KRIS M 730 36 3/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-97432941-041-09-007 HAAS CARLA C 830 SHIRAZ PALISADE CO 815262937-082-00-031 HALPER MARGUERITE C 43566 SENTIERO DR INDIO CA 9220329372937-082-03-003 HARRIS SARAH L 3635 G 4/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-87122937-082-00-108 HARRISON BRANT R 860 RAPID CREEK RD PALISADE CO 81526-94012937-071-00-131 HARSHA JOE BLAKE 737 36 3/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-97692941-042-00-051 HAYWORTH NANCY R 3637 FRONT ST PALISADE CO 81526-86122941-041-09-004 HJELLE KRISTIN S 2030 POPLAR DR GRAND JUNCCO 81505-70442937-071-00-132 HOFFMAN THOMAS A PO BOX 1336 PALISADE CO 8152613362941-041-00-079 HOLSAN RICHARD L 3691 G RD PALISADE CO 81526-86162937-083-11-003 HOPFFGARTEN MARGARET I TR 3639 WHITE LILY AVE PALISADE CO 815262941-042-01-002 HUGHBANKS CLIFTON LEE 3633 G RD PALISADE CO 81526-87022937-082-03-002 HUNKA JOHN 3633 G 4/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-87122941-042-00-169 JMA FAMILY TRUST 3603 FRONT ST PALISADE CO 81526-86112941-051-00-067 JOHNSON BRIAN E 3593 FRONT ST PALISADE CO 81526-86102941-042-02-010 JOSEPH SALLY JO 667 36 1/4 RD PALISADE CO 81526-86182941-042-07-001 KEENAN THOMAS B 803 ELBERTA AVE PALISADE CO 81526-42002937-071-00-036 KOLLASCH EDWARD E 721 36 1/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-87912941-042-00-001 KORVER ELAINE L 3601 G RD PALISADE CO 815262941-051-00-079 KRABBE WAYNE A 3601 FRONT ST PALISADE CO 81526-86112941-041-09-008 KUNTZ DEREK 832 SHIRAZ DR PALISADE CO 815262941-051-00-113 LATE AFTERNOON ORCHARDS L PO BOX 1467 PALISADE CO 815262937-082-00-026 LEAK MICHAEL E 718 36 3/10 RD PALISADE CO 815262941-041-05-003 LICATA LOUIS GEORGE REVOC T3663 FRONT ST PALISADE CO 815262937-074-00-107 LIKES MATTHEW D 3630 G RD PALISADE CO 81526-87042937-074-00-096 MAJORS LISA A 713 36 1/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-87912941-042-00-058 MCKEE STEPHEN L 3619 FRONT ST PALISADE CO 81526-86112941-041-04-002 MCLEAN MICHAEL L 607 MOSS WAY PALISADE CO 81526-87362941-041-00-942 MESA COUNTY VALLEY SCHOOL 2115 GRAND AVE GRAND JUNCCO 81501-80072941-041-09-009 METZLER DONALD R AND DIAN 834 SHIRAZ DR PALISADE CO 815262937-083-00-104 MOCABY MITCHELL S 3666 G RD PALISADE CO 81526-87052941-041-09-012 MOFFETT BRIAN R 844 SHIRAZ DR PALISADE CO 8152686502941-041-00-020 MULNIX RONALD R PO BOX 416 MESA CO 81643-04162937-083-11-001 NARENKIVICIUS JASON PO BOX 457 PALISADE CO 815262937-074-00-106 NEUMEIER VALERIE A 703 36 3/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-97692937-074-00-056 NIELSEN BRYAN G 1336 E CRICLE MOUNTAIN R NEW RIVER AZ 8508775822937-082-03-004 NISBET JERRY J 736 36 3/10 RD PALISADE CO 8152697432941-044-00-083 NOLAND BRYAN L 3652 1/2 F RD PALISADE CO 81526-93242941-043-00-096 NOLAND MAX L 3654 F RD PALISADE CO 81526-9324

23


Notification Table

Page 3 of 4

2937-083-00-067 NORTH TOM 3650 G RD PALISADE CO 81526-87052937-074-00-103 O'BANION DANIEL E PO BOX 37 CLIFTON CO 81520-00372937-071-00-059 OTTO GREG 231 ROBINSON ST UNIT 234 BASALT CO 8162183902937-084-00-951 PALISADE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 3702 G RD PALISADE CO 815262937-074-00-067 PEAK JEFFREY W 713 36 3/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-97692941-041-08-001 PERAGINE PENNY 814 SHIRAZ DR PALISADE CO 815262941-042-02-013 PETERMAN JOHN ROBERT 653 36 1/4 RD PALISADE CO 81526-86182937-074-00-130 PETERSON DAVID M 714 36 1/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-97442941-042-00-101 PINNT DAVID T PO BOX 277 MESA CO 81643-02772941-043-00-093 PLUM CREEK HOUSE LLP 3626 F RD PALISADE CO 81526-93242937-071-00-133 POSCHMAN PATRICIA E 3621 G 4/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-87112937-083-11-002 PULSIPHER JAMES D 703 MOUNT LINCOLN ST PALISADE CO 815262937-083-11-004 PULSIPHER JAMES D 3639 WHITE LILLY AVE PALISADE CO 815262937-071-00-030 RAVEN VENTURES LLC 3611 G 4/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-87112941-042-00-102 REDD BRENDA LEA 3645 G RD PALISADE CO 815262941-042-00-070 REIERSGAARD JAMES L 3615 FRONT ST PALISADE CO 81526-86112937-074-00-064 REILLY MARK S 3626 G RD PALISADE CO 815262941-042-00-056 REIMER GREGORY S 3629 G RD PALISADE CO 81526-87022937-081-00-173 RISH RONALD P 745 BLISS DR PALISADE CO 81526-92022941-042-03-002 SANDER CARINA 3609 G RD PALISADE CO 81526-87022937-082-00-132 SCHRECK THOMAS J 3645 1/2 G 4/10 RD PALISADE CO 815262937-082-00-135 SCHUMANN MAURICE L PO BOX 1290 PALISADE CO 81526-12902937-083-00-068 SEARCY JERRY W 3646 G RD PALISADE CO 815262937-074-00-062 SEXTON MICHAEL S 707 36 3/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-97692941-042-03-006 SMITH DONALD L 3613 G RD UNIT E PALISADE CO 81526-87522941-042-00-084 SMITH THOM D PO BOX 997 PALISADE CO 815262941-043-00-061 SNYDER ROYAL C JR 3603 GRAND VALLEY CANAL PALISADE CO 81526-86792937-074-00-068 SOMERVILLE JAMES T 715 36 3/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-97692941-051-00-013 SSH INVESTMENTS LLC 3577 FRONT ST PALISADE CO 815262941-041-09-003 STANFIELD JASON T 820 CABERNET CT PALISADE CO 815262937-071-00-114 STEELE SHARON K 741 36 3/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-97702937-083-02-021 STENGER DENNIS R 3640 G RD PALISADE CO 81526-87052941-041-00-019 STONER SCOTT 569 32 1/2 RD UNIT D CLIFTON CO 81520-76612941-042-03-001 SURBER MICHAEL S 3613 G RD UNIT B PALISADE CO 81526-87522941-054-00-048 TAYLOR SHERI L 3583 GRAND VALLEY CANAL PALISADE CO 815262937-083-11-005 TAYLOR TREVOR D 3636 G RD PALISADE CO 815262941-042-03-004 THEUNISSEN ROGER H JR 3613 G RD UNIT D PALISADE CO 81526-87522937-083-00-090 THOMASON BETTY L 3656 G RD PALISADE CO 81526-87052941-041-00-943 TOWN OF PALISADE PO BOX 128 PALISADE CO 815262937-074-00-060 TRUMBO PAUL H 717 36 3/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-97692941-042-00-103 VODEHNAL KENNETH ALAN HC 66 BOX 24 STEAMBOAT CO 804872937-083-00-069 WEYLER WAYNE S 714 36 3/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-97432937-082-00-117 WHITE BRUCE A 3639 G 4/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-87122941-042-02-011 WHITE LAWRENCE K 669 36 1/4 RD PALISADE CO 81526-86182937-074-00-101 WIERENGA MICHAEL L 715 36 1/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-87912937-082-03-006 WILCOX DWAIN DEE 732 36 3/10 RD PALISADE CO 81526-97432937-082-00-105 WILSON ROBERT M 3838 HIGHLINE CANAL RD PALISADE CO 815269792

24


Notification Table

Page 4 of 4

2937-074-00-052 WOODBURN R F 3598 G RD PALISADE CO 81526-97902937-074-03-002 ZINK JAMES MARTIN 7155 1ST ST SE CARRINGTONND 58421

Jesse Miltier 523-A 29 3/8 Rd GRAND JUNCCO 81504

25

MCPC MINUTES

26

MESA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION June 26, 2014

PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES Chairman Moreng called to order a scheduled hearing of the Mesa County Planning Commission at 6 p.m. 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, Christi Flynn, Pat Bittle, Chip Page, Rusty Price, Ron Wriston and George Skiff. In attendance, representing the Mesa County Planning Division, were: Keith Fife and Christie Barton. Kathy Kinsey and Megan Velarde were present to record the minutes. There were six (6) citizens present throughout the hearing. Approval of Minutes 5-22-14 Motion: Commissioner Page moved to approve the minutes as written. Second: Commissioner Bittle Motion Approved 6-0

*After the approval of the minutes Commissioner Skiff was seated at the Dais.

Continued Items None

Consent Items 1. 2014-0073 PUD MESA COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS PUD AMENDMENT Property Owner: Mesa County Representative: Jo Carole Haxel, Fairgrounds Manager Location: 2785 Highway 50, Grand Junction Zoning: PUD Planner: Christie Barton, 255-7191, [email protected] Request: Amend the existing PUD after adoption of the new Master Plan. This will clarify the uses, specify the phasing for improvements, add regulatory guidance and new polices into the PUD language. Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions Board of County Commissioners Hearing Date: 7-22-14 Chairman Moreng noted there was no one present from the public, explained the consent agenda and asked for a motion to approve or if anyone from the Planning Commission had any concerns or questions about any of the consent agenda Items. Motion: Commissioner Bittle moved to approve the consent agenda. Second: Commissioner Flynn

27

Mesa County Planning Commission June 26, 2014 Public Hearing Minutes

Motion: Approval with Conditions 7-0 Hearing Items 2. 2014-0029 CUP TWO SONS KENNEL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Property Owner(s): William Emmons Representative(s): Jesse Miltier Location: 3645 Front Street, Palisade Zoning: AFT Planner: [email protected], (970)244-1771 Request: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a private outdoor animal boarding facility with up to 24 outdoor kennel areas. Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions Board of County Commissioners Hearing Date: 8-12-14 STAFF PRESENTATION Christie Barton, Senior Planner, entered into the record the Mesa County Master Plan, the Mesa County Land Development Code, the project review file 2014-0029 CUP, the power point presentation labeled as exhibit A, and a petition labeled as Exhibit 1. Ms. Barton explained that the request is for a Conditional Use Permit for a private outdoor animal facility with up to twenty-four (24) kennel areas. Ms. Barton showed a location map of the property and stated that the property is off of Front Street near Palisade. She said the kennels are approximately 785 feet from the town to the south and 1,187 feet to the east. Ms. Barton stated that the zoning is AFT. Ms. Barton provided background regarding the request. She stated that the dog owner, Mr. Miltier, has an agreement with the property owner, Mr. Emmons, to kennel his eighteen (18) sled dogs on a portion of the property. In 2013, Mesa County Compliance received a complaint about barking dogs and the owner was cited for having more than five dogs on residential property. Ms. Barton explained that a compliance plan is in place that stipulates that the owner must pursue an appropriate land use permit to keep the dogs which is why the owner is seeking a Conditional Use Permit as this time. Ms. Barton showed several pictures of the property and the kennels. Ms. Barton discussed the approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit found in Section 3.8.7 and General Approval Criteria found in Section 3.1.17 of the Land Development Code. She acknowledged that there were comments from the public that showed concerns about noise and the treatment of the dogs. Ms. Barton discussed that the Mesa County Planning Division staff recommended approval with conditions and listed the suggested conditions. Questions Commissioner Price asked Ms. Barton a question regarding the complaint of barking dogs. Chair Moreng asked Ms. Barton how the number of dogs allowed was determined. Ms. Barton explained that the owner of the dogs currently has eighteen (18) but originally was requesting permission to have twenty-four (24) on the property. Chair

28


Moreng asked Ms. Barton how the conditions of approval would be enforced. Ms. Barton explained that if there are complaints, someone from the County will go out and check the property. Commissioner Page asked who owns the property, Keith Fife clarified that the owner of the dogs is not the owner of the property. Applicant Jesse Miltier – 523 A 29 3/8 Rd Mr. Miltier explained that he has extensive experience with sled dogs and elaborated on what led to the complaint regarding his dogs barking. He stated that there were sheep on the neighboring property which caused his dogs to bark. Since the incident, applicant told Commissioners that he has had most of his dogs surgically debarked to prevent further complaints about nuisance barking. Mr. Miltier discussed some of the charitable work with his sled dogs that he does in Mesa County through the year. Questions Commissioner Wriston asked the applicant who takes care of the dogs while he is away. Mr. Miltier said he has a friend by the name of Casey Karp take care of the dogs when he is not able to visit the property. Commissioner Skiff asked if the dogs frequently leave the property. Mr. Miltier replied that the dogs are only off of the property when he takes them to races. Commissioner Wriston asked a question regarding the number of dogs. The applicant explained that he decided to change his request from twenty-four (24) to eighteen (18). He explained that originally he wanted to be able to have the eighteen (18) dogs currently on the property as well as the dogs that live at his residence be able to stay at the kennel when he was away so it would be easier for the people taking care of the animals. Commissioner Price asked Mr. Miltier if he does dog training. Mr. Miltier says he works with his own dogs but no other dogs. Commissioner Wriston asked Mr. Miltier about the breed of dogs. The applicant said the dogs are Alaskan and Serbian Huskies. Chair Moreng asked the applicant if he plans on debarking the remaining dogs. Mr. Miltier stated that he is hesitant to debark his remaining dogs because they are older. Discussion Chair Moreng asked fellow Commissioners if there should be a condition added that stipulates that if Mr. Miltier purchases new dogs, he must have them debarked. Mr. Miltier stated that the older dogs are not barkers to begin with but said he would be willing to debark new dogs when they are younger. Question Commissioner Wriston asked Mr. Miltier if he breeds his dogs. Mr. Miltier said he has had two litters of puppies in the past few years and he keeps them. Public Comments Mark Diebold – 115 Davis Circle Mr. Diebold stated that he did not understand why Mr. Miltier did not house the dogs closer to his property instead of eight (8) miles away. He stated that he hears the dogs barking frequently and expressed that he did not believe a kennel belonged in the Palisade Heritage Area. He asked the Commissioners who will enforce the conditions

29


and address problems that may occur. Chair Moreng asked Mark Diebold if he had ever complained about Mr. Miltier’s dogs barking. Mr. Diebold stated that he has not formally complained about the dogs. John Peterman - 653 36 1/4 Road Mr. Peterman expressed concern regarding the health of Mr. Miltier’s dogs. Mr. Peterson discussed the petition that showed that many of the area residents were concerned about the kennel. Chair Moreng asked Mr. Peterman if he has ever formally complained about Mr. Miltier’s dogs. Mr. Peterman explained that he and his wife have complained in the past. Susan Peterman – 653 36 1/4 Road Ms. Peterman stated that if she would have known that the applicant would debark the dogs after she and her husband complained about the dogs barking, she would not have complained. Ms. Peterman showed concern about the dog’s wellbeing. Sally Joseph – 667 36 1/4 Road Ms. Joseph acknowledged that the barking has gotten better since Mr. Miltier had some of his dogs debarked. She stated that she was concerned about the dogs because they are confined to short leashes. Applicant Response In response to Mr. Diebold, Mr. Miltier explained why he is not able to keep his sled dogs on his property. Mr. Miltier stated that William Emmons is retired so he is able to spend a lot of time on his property. Mr. Miltier said Mr. Emmons is good at communicating with Mr. Miltier about the dogs. Mr. Miltier explained that he has had no bad incidents with the Palisade police. In response to the Peterman’s concern about the wellbeing of his dogs, Mr. Miltier said the dogs have been evaluated and they were found to be in good health. He explained that his dogs are athletic, not malnourished. Since the dogs are working dogs, Mr. Miltier explained that they will look differently than regular household dogs. Mr. Miltier stated that the vets at Arrowhead Veterinarian Clinic are willing to write a letter that states that the dogs are in good health. He suggested that maybe the Peterman’s and Ms. Joseph are hearing coyotes by the river at night and not his dogs. Mr. Miltier stated that he is willing to cooperate with the Mesa County planners to ensure that all of the dogs have access to shade during the day. Questions Chair Moreng asked Mr. Miltier if he thought debarking was humane. Applicant said it was a personal opinion and stated that there are vets within Mesa County that provide the procedure. Chair Moreng asked the applicant to provide letters from the vet to support his claims that the dogs are healthy, since some members of the public disagreed. Mr. Miltier stated the vets at Arrowhead in Fruita, who performed the de-barking procedure, would be willing to write a letter. He said his normal veterinarian did not want to get involved. Commissioner Price asked Mr. Miltier if Mesa County Animal Services had been to the property where the kennel is located. Mr. Miltier explained that Animal Services visited the site and the visit took place on June 11th. Commissioner

30


Bittle asked if Animal Services saw any other concerns other than the need for more shade for the dogs. Mr. Miltier stated that adequate shade was their only concern. Comments Commissioner Flynn discussed debarking and stated that she was not opposed to this procedure but does not think that Mr. Miltier should be required to debark all of his dogs. She also stated that he should not be allowed to have any more than eighteen (18) dogs. She showed support for the approval of the project. Commissioner Wriston agreed with the applicant that working dogs are generally leaner than household pets. Commissioner Page expressed his concern about Mr. Miltier not being on the premises 24/7 with his dogs. Commissioner Page discussed a Palisade ordinance that regulated kennels within Palisade and suggested that the Planning Commission have an annual review in regards to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Bittle inquired about the city code he discussed and asked if the applicant was within the city limits. Commissioner Page clarified that the application is outside of the city but suggested the code still be used as a guide. Commissioner Bittle said she did not think the code should be used as a guide since city living and rural living differ greatly. Commissioner Page showed concern for how the kennel would impact the neighbors. Motion: Commissioner Price moved for approval with conditions of 2014-0029 CUP. Second: Commissioner Bittle Chair Moreng asked Commissioner Price if he would add an amendment to the approval that a review process should take place annually. Commissioner Price stated that he would not accept the amendment. There was a discussion regarding the process of adding an amendment to a motion. Chair Moreng asked the fellow Commissioners if there were any other amendments that they wished to add. Seeing none, Chair Moreng asked for a roll call vote. Motion Approval with Conditions 6-1 Commissioner Page voted against the project Motion: Commissioner Wriston moved that the meeting be adjourned. Second: Commissioner Page Motion Approved 7-0 Hearing adjourned at 7:11 PM Respectfully Submitted, ___________________________________ Pat Bittle, Secretary

31

REVIEW AGENCY

COMMENTS

32

User Review Agency

Date/Time Comment

Linda Dannenberger

2/12/2014 3:24:51 PM

I don't see the Legal Description of the Property or the Project Narrative as requested on the checklist. - Linda

Kathy Kinsey 2/12/2014 4:00:29 PM

The "site plan" that is in the file is upside down. We need that document scanned in again so it appears right side up please. Kathy

Daniel Roussin CODOT-REGION 3

5/1/2014 9:32:22 AM

I have no comments

Darrell Bay MC BUILDING DEPT

5/5/2014 10:16:14 AM

Building department has no objections. If any building are built or any utilities ran to site a building permit will be required

Robin Carns MC DEV ENGINEER

5/6/2014 8:30:02 AM

OWTS for the existing residence will not be impacted by the proposed use. RC

Carrie Gudorf MC FLOODPLAIN ADMIN

5/6/2014 4:40:12 PM

The property is located in a flood zone X, a floodplain permit is not required.

JIM DAUGHERTY WATER UTE 5/7/2014 10:17:39 AM

• Mechanical plans for site and facility must be submitted; and a cross connection survey completed prior to the District’s approval.• 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.

KEVIN WILLIAMS IRR GV DRAINAGE

5/17/2014 8:22:50 AM

GVDD has no comment

MC DEV ENGINEER

MC DEV ENGINEER

5/20/2014 2:01:59 PM

MC Development Engineering

No comments.

RON QUARLES CITY PALISADE 5/20/2014 3:54:37 PM

For informational purposes, please consider the following standards that are applied in the Town of Palisade:

As per the Palisade Land Development Code:• Kennels are permitted as conditional use permits only in the Agricultural Residential (AR) and the Agriculture Forestry Transitional (AFT) Districts.• In addition, a kennel may only be allowed in conjunction with a veterinary clinic or animal hospital facility and kennel areas shall be completely enclosed, indoors, within sound proof walls.

It is suggested that if the CUP is granted, limitations be placed on the CUP that would not permit the transfer to another operator and that the use be subject to annual or bi-annual review.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this application.

Ron Quarles, Community Development Director.

PRO2014-0029 - TWO SONS KENNEL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Review Agency CommentsComments Due Date: 2014-05-22

35

Daniel Sundstrom MC TRANS PLAN 5/22/2014 8:05:07 AM

No comments

Linda Dannenberger

6/11/2014 4:09:08 PM

Animal Services comment added in "Files". LD, Planning

36

6/11/2014 Mesa County Mail - Site visit

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=a86a416c39&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1468be876c9e13ea&siml=1468be876c9e13ea 1/1

Linda Dannenberger <l [email protected]>

Site v isit1 message

Penny Mccarty <[email protected]> Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:10 AMTo: Linda Dannenberger <[email protected]>

Based on this morning's site visit, Mesa County Animal Services would recommend that there be additionalshade for the four dogs at the start of the kenneling area. While the other dogs have shade available to them,these dogs do not have access to natural shading based on the tree line and would be in full sun for several hourseach day. The temperatures can be extreme and shading in addition to access to a dog house is important toeach animals health and welfare.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

-- Penny McCarty, Director

Mesa County Animal Services971A Coffman RoadWhitewater, CO 81527 Mailing Address:Department 5002P.O. 20,000Grand Junction, CO 81502-5001

Phone: 970.255.5003Fax: 970.245.5315

NOTICE: This e-mail message and any e-mail received are the property of Mesa County. As such, the contentsof any message is subject to the requirements of the "Sunshine Law" and are available to the public upon writtenrequest. Mesa County does not have the authority to keep information anonymous based on a request by acitizen.

37

tel:970.255.5003

tel:970.245.5315

PUBLIC COMMENTS

38

7/15/2014 Mesa County Mail - Personal Boarding of Sled Dogs

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=a86a416c39&view=pt&q=Leach&qs=true&search=query&th=146ee507d1baa9a4&siml=146ee507d1baa9a4&siml=14… 1/5

Linda Dannenberger <l [email protected]>

Personal Boarding of Sle d Dogs9 messages

Linda Dannenberger <[email protected]> Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:46 PMTo: [email protected]

Hello, Scott,Our Board of County Commissioners has a public hearing coming up soon to consider a land use permit for thekeeping (boarding) of one person's sled dogs on private property. The applicant has 18 dogs - a picture isattached - and uses them for sled dog racing. He does not board anyone else's dogs, nor does he sell thesedogs. A citizen in opposition to the boarding has notified me of PACFA codes of regulations. I have read partsof the regulations; however, I cannot tell if they apply to the keeping of personal dogs.

Any information you can provide me will be most helpful, thank you,--

Linda Linda DannenbergerPlanning Division DirectorMesa County Public Works(970)244-1771

P6100001.JPG1475K

Scott Leach <[email protected]> Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:56 PMTo: Linda Dannenberger <[email protected]>

Linda,

If someone has greater than 15 dogs on their property, then they are technically required to license with Pacfa asa private animal station. However, if this person does any breeding of the dogs, then we generally have themlicense as a Dog Breeder Small Scale instead of an animal shelter. So, yes, we would need to have them applyfor a Pacfa license. I am coincidentally going to be in the Grand Junction area tomorrow. If you can send theiraddress I will make a stop by their place and drop off the application information. Also - if they do not meet ourrequirements for licensure, then we do not issue the Pacfa license. Please feel free to contact me if you haveother questions.

Thanks,Scott

46

tel:%28970%29244-1771

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=a86a416c39&view=att&th=146ee507d1baa9a4&attid=0.1&disp=inline&realattid=f_hx25clzt1&safe=1&zw



Scott Leach, MSPACFA Inspector - Central COState Veterinarian's Office

C 720.402.8552 | P 303.869.9130 | F 303.466.8515305 Interlocken Parkway, Broomfield, CO [email protected] | www.colorado.gov/ag/animals[Quoted text hidden]

Linda Dannenberger <[email protected]> Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:47 PMTo: Scott Leach <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]

Scott, Jesse Miltier is the applicant. Mr. Miltier is interested in visiting with you tomorrow about theapplication. He works at the Veterans Administration Hospital, 2121 North Avenue in Grand Junction, Building 36in the southwest corner of the property, and the public is allowed there. His cell phone number is (970)270-4056. I have copied him on this e-mail.

Based on your e-mail, if Mr. Miltier's application is approved, it would be on condition that an application isapproved by your agency.

Thanks a lot. Please contact me if you need anything else or would like to meet with me as well tomorrow. Mycell is (970)261-9318. Have a good trip.[Quoted text hidden]

Linda Dannenberger <[email protected]> Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:49 PMTo: Penny McCarty <[email protected]>

Here you go... I've connected the two of them tomorrow. I will stay in touch with Scott, thanks again for hiscontact info.[Quoted text hidden]

Scott Leach <[email protected]> Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 7:06 AMTo: Linda Dannenberger <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]

Jesse,

I have an appt this morning at 8am to do an inspection of the Roice Hurst Humane Society. I can head your wayafter that is finished, if that is convenient. I imagine it would be about 9am. Please let me know if that works -email is a little easier for me than a phone call, however my cell phone is listed below.

Thank you,Scott

47


http://www.colorado.gov/ag/animals

tel:%28970%29270-4056

tel:%28970%29261-9318




C 720.402.8552 | P 303.869.9130 | F 303.466.8515305 Interlocken Parkway, Broomfield, CO [email protected] | www.colorado.gov/ag/animals

[Quoted text hidden]

Scott Leach <[email protected]> Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 9:13 PMTo: Linda Dannenberger <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]

Mr. Miltier,

Thank you for meeting with me today to discuss the Pacfa regulations. As we discussed, please get back to mevia email or cell phone no later than 7/8/2014 to let me know if you will be proceeding with the Pacfa applicationprocess or if you will be reducing your number of dogs on premises to 15 or less, which would mean that you nolonger meet the requirements to have to license with the Pacfa program. As we also discussed, if you decide tomove forward with the license application process, because you have occasional litters of puppies, I wouldstrongly encourage you to license as a Dog Breeder (Small Scale) as opposed to the Animal Shelter. All of thesled dog operations in my territory are licensed as a Dog Breeder, even though they have occasional litters. I'veincluded links to both our current rule and the rules that will go into effect as of July 30th. I've cc'd Ms.Dannenberger with Mesa County on this email so that she is aware of our conversation today.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Current Rule:

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=Content-Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B+filename%3D%22Updated+Draft+Rule.pdf%22&blobheadervalue2=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1252001726614&ssbinary=true

Rule as of July 30, 2014:


Sincerely,

Scott Leach

48










Linda Dannenberger <[email protected]> Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 3:11 PMTo: Scott Leach <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]

Thanks, Scott.

Jesse, that would be good timing for County Planning as well. I will have to prepare the Board of Commissioners'report by July 14 and will want to update it if necessary. What is the situation with the occasional litters? Doyou keep the mother and pups with you for a while?

Thanks, all,[Quoted text hidden]

Linda Dannenberger <[email protected]> Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 4:09 PMTo: Scott Leach <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]

Hi, I'm wondering where you are on the PACFA application, Jesse. If we need to continue the hearing, I need toknow in the next 2 days.

Scott, does it take a long time to review the application? Do you see obvious issues that would prevent approvalof the application?

Thank you,[Quoted text hidden]

Scott Leach <[email protected]> Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 4:21 PMTo: Linda Dannenberger <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]

Linda,

It does not take much time to process the application once it is sent in. Since Jesse and I did not meet at hisplace where the dogs are, I can't comment as to how long it would take to get a license issued, if Jesse goesthat route. As long as he meets our minimum requirements it would not take long to get a license issued to him.

Jesse - please let me know by end of business tomorrow what your decision is so we can move forward witheither getting an inspection scheduled or with closing out your file.

49





Thanks,Scott




50



APPLICANT INFORMATION

51

RESOLUTIONS

60

of 3

RESOLUTION NO. _________________ Planning Department No. 2014-0058 RZ

APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO REZONE A PORTION OF THE EDKA LAND COMPANY, LLC PROPERTY

LOCATED AT 3271½ F 3/10 ROAD, CLIFTON FROM THE RSF-4 DISTRICT TO THE RMF-8 DISTRICT

WHEREAS, Ed Lenhart of EDKA Land Company, LLC, sought approval to rezone a portion of the property located at 3271½ F 3/10 Road, Clifton from a Residential Single Family 4 units/acre (RSF-4) District to the Residential Multi-Family-8 units/acre (RMF-8) District within the County of Mesa, State of Colorado and shown on attached Exhibit "A" Location Map, and more particularly described on attached Exhibit "B" Legal Description, and

WHEREAS, the staff recommendation was contained in a staff report dated May 12, 2014, and WHEREAS, the Mesa County Planning Commission recommended approval at the May 22, 2014 Planning Commission public hearing, and WHEREAS, the public hearing duly noticed was held before the Mesa County Board of County Commissioners on June 10, 2014. 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. THAT a rezoning of a portion of the property located at 3271½ F 3/10 Road, Clifton from a Residential Single Family 4 units/acre (RSF-4) District to the Residential Multi-Family-8 units/acre (RMF-8) District meets the applicable Approval Criteria for Rezonings (Zoning Map Amendments) of Section 3.4.7, and General Approval Criteria of Section 3.1.17 of the Mesa County Land Development Code (2000, as amended) and is consistent with the Grand Junction Comprehensive Plan, an element of the Mesa County Master Plan. THAT the application is consistent with Intergovernmental Agreements. THAT this request is in accordance with the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Mesa County.

61

of 3

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN THE COUNTY OF MESA, STATE OF COLORADO: THAT the request for a rezone for a portion of the property located at 3271½ F 3/10 Road from the Residential Single Family 4 units/acre (RSF-4) District to the Residential Multi-Family-8 units/acre (RMF-8) District, Clifton is approved. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS ____ DAY OF ____________________, 2014. ____________________________________ John Justman, Chair Board of Mesa County Commissioners ATTEST: _______________________________ Sheila Reiner Clerk and Recorder

62

of 3

Exhibit A Location Map

Exhibit B Legal Description The East 50 feet of the following described property: Beginning at a point North 235.6 feet and South 89°02’ East 444.8 feet to the Southwest Corner of the SE¼ NW¼ SE¼ , Section 2, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Ute Meridian, thence South 89°02’ East 100 feet, thence South 00°50’ East 226.4 feet, thence West 100 feet, thence North 00°50’ West 228 feet to the point of beginning, All in County of Mesa, State of Colorado.

63

of 4

RESOLUTION NO. _________________ Planning Department No. 2014-0064 ZM

APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR A ZONE MAP AMENDMENT FOR THE JOYCE LUSTER TALLMAN LLC PROPERTIES

LOCATED AT 2729 & 2731 HIGHWAY 50, GRAND JUNCTION TO CORRECT THE ZONING FROM THE PUD DISTRICT TO THE RSF-4 DISTRICT

WHEREAS, Joyce Luster Tallman sought approval to correct the zoning on two parcels totaling approximately 1.4 acres located at 2729 & 2731 Highway 50, Grand Junction from the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District to the Residential Single Family-4 units/acre District (RSF-4) within the County of Mesa, State of Colorado and shown on attached Exhibit "A" and more particularly described on attached Exhibit "B" and WHEREAS, the Mesa County Consolidated Zoning Map appears to have been changed in error in 1976 for these two properties as part of a rezone on an adjacent property, and

WHEREAS, the staff recommendation was contained in a staff report dated May 23, 2014, and WHEREAS, the public hearing duly noticed was held before the Mesa County Board of County Commissioners on June 10, 2014. 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. THAT a Zone Map Amendment for two parcels located at 2729 & 2731 Highway 50, Grand Junction from the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District to the Residential Single Family-4 units/acre District (RSF-4) meets the applicable Approval Criteria for Rezonings (Zoning Map Amendments) of Section 3.4.7, and General Approval Criteria of Section 3.1.17 of the Mesa County Land Development Code (2000, as amended).

THAT the Zone Map Amendment corrects the zoning to the original zoning in 1976. THAT the properties can be consistent with the Grand Junction Comprehensive Plan, an

element of the Mesa County Master Plan, when they are re-developed. THAT this request is consistent with Intergovernmental Agreements.

64

of 4

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 request for Zone Map Amendment for two parcels located at 2729 & 2731 Highway 50, Grand Junction from the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District to the Residential Single Family-4 units/acre District (RSF-4) is approved. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS ____ DAY OF ____________________, 2014. ____________________________________ John Justman, Chair Board of Mesa County Commissioners ATTEST: _______________________________ Sheila Reiner Clerk and Recorder

65

of 4


66

of 4

Exhibit B Legal Descriptions

67

of 5

RESOLUTION NO. _________________ Planning Department No. 2014-0066 VA

APPROVAL OF THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF RIGHT–OF-WAY LOCATED ADJACENT TO TAX PARCEL # 2967-141-00-049

AT THE INTERSECTION OF COFFMAN ROAD AND GAYLORD STREET, WHITEWATER

WHEREAS, River City Consultants, Inc., on behalf of Whitewater Village, LLC,

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

WHEREAS, the site plan showing the portion of right of way proposed to be vacated is

shown in Exhibit “C”, and WHEREAS, the staff recommendation was contained in a staff report dated May 27,

2014, and

WHEREAS, the public hearing before the Mesa County Board of County Commissioners was held on June 10, 2014.

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.

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

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 a portion of right–of-way located adjacent to Tax Parcel #2967-141-00-049 at the intersection of Coffman Road and Gaylord Street, Whitewater is approved.

68

of 5

PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS ____ DAY OF ____________________, 2014.

____________________________________ John Justman, Chair Board of Mesa County Commissioners

ATTEST: _______________________________ Sheila Reiner Clerk and Recorder

69

of 5


Exhibit B Legal Descriptions Three parcels of land situated in the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 14, Township 2 South, Range 1 East of the Ute Meridian, Mesa County, Colorado being parts of that certain right of way located within Tedrick Simple Land Division which was deeded to County of Mesa by instrument recorded February 27, 2013 at Reception No. 264578 and re-recorded April 1, 2013 at Reception No. 2649711, said parts being more particularly described as follows: VACATION PARCEL 1 Commencing at a 3.25" aluminum capped monument marked "PLS 20141, M.C.E., 2012" for the center-north sixteenth corner of said Section 14, whence a 3.25" aluminum capped monument marked "PLS 24953" for the northeast sixteenth corner of said Section 14 bears North 89°53'10" East, a distance of 1327.31 feet with all bearings herein relative thereto; Thence North 89°53'10" East, a distance of 253.02 feet; Thence South 13°58'33" East, a distance of 30.90 feet to the Point of Beginning of Vacation Parcel 1; Thence North 89°53'10" East, a distance of 17.30 feet;

70

of 5

Thence 111.94 feet along the arc of a 415.00 foot radius non-tangent curve to the left, through a central angle of 15°27'18", with a chord bearing South 38°09'26" East, a distance of 111.60 feet; to a point of compound curvature; Thence 33.24 feet along the arc of a 20.00 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle of 95°13'21", with a chord bearing North 86°30'14" East, a distance of 29.54 feet; Thence South 38°30'32" West, a distance of 2.25 feet; Thence 36.91 feet along the arc of a 23.50 foot radius tangent curve to the right, through a central angle of 90°00'01", with a chord bearing South 83°30'32" West, a distance of 33.23 feet; Thence North 51°29'27" West tangent to said curve, a distance of 30.04 feet; Thence 71.55 feet along the arc of a 419.00 foot radius non-tangent curve to the right, through a central angle of 9°47'03", with a chord bearing North 46°36'05" West, a distance of 71.46 feet; Thence North 13°58'33" West, a distance of 24.36 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 0.042 acres, more or less. VACATION PARCEL 2 Commencing at a 3.25" aluminum capped monument marked "PLS 20141, M.C.E., 2012" for the center-north sixteenth corner of said Section 14, whence a 3.25" aluminum capped monument marked "PLS 24953" for the northeast sixteenth corner of said Section 14 bears North 89°53'10" East, a distance of 1327.31 feet with all bearings herein relative thereto; Thence North 89°53'10" East, a distance of 404.70 feet; Thence South 00°06'50" East, a distance of 30.00 feet; Thence North 89°53'10" East a distance of 60.00 feet Thence South 00°00'01" East, a distance of 12.77 feet to the Point of Beginning of Vacation Parcel 2; Thence South 00°00'00" East, a distance of 159.02 feet; Thence South 51°29'35" East, a distance of 53.98 feet; Thence South 38°26'27" West, a distance of 14.00 feet; Thence North 51°29'28" West, a distance of 93.00 feet; Thence 36.91 feet along the arc of a 23.50 foot radius tangent curve to the right, through a central angle of 89°59'59", with a chord bearing North 06°29'28" West, a distance of 33.23 feet; Thence North 38°30'32" East tangent to said curve, a distance of 7.83 feet; Thence 115.22 feet along the arc of a 175.35 foot radius tangent curve to the left, through a central angle of 37°38'54", with a chord bearing North 19°41'05" East, a distance of 113.16 feet to a point of cusp at the Point of Beginning. Containing 0.100 acres, more or less. VACATION PARCEL 3 Commencing at a 3.25" aluminum capped monument marked "PLS 20141, M.C.E., 2012" for the center-north sixteenth corner of said Section 14, whence a 3.25" aluminum capped monument marked "PLS 24953" for the northeast sixteenth corner of said Section 14 bears North 89°53'10" East, a distance of 1327.31 feet with all bearings herein relative thereto; Thence North 89°53'10" East, a distance of 253.02 feet; Thence South 13°58'33" East, a distance of 150.64 feet to the Point of Beginning of Vacation Parcel 3; Thence South 51°29'28" East, a distance of 225.57 feet;

71

of 5

Thence South 38°30'25" West, a distance of 14.00 feet; Thence North 61°08'43" West, a distance of 179.58 feet; Thence North 50°56'27" East, a distance of 6.00 feet; Thence North 13°58'33" West, a distance of 62.82 feet; to the Point of Beginning. Containing 0.139 acres, more or less. Exhibit C Site Plan of Vacation of Right of Way

72

board of mesa county commissioners · 7/22/2014 · 1. 2014-0029 cup two sons kennel conditional...

Documents