HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 08.09.2004PROJECT IN FORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST
APPLICANT / OWNER
LOCATION
SITE DATA
ACCESS
ZONING
SURROUNDING ZONING
Special Use Permit to allow for "storage of Natural
Resources"
Ada Raymond, represented by Robert Raymond
0738 CR 113 (Cattle Creek Drainage)
Approximately 8.7 acres
CR 113 (Cattle Creek Road)
ARRD
ARRD / OS (BLM)
[Subject Property is in light grey on Existing Zoning Map shown aboveJ
I. HISTORY / BACKGROUND
The Applicant was cited for a zoning violation by the County Zonrng Enforcement Officer by
letter on May 19, 2003. The violation was the storage of stone I natural resources on the property
without a Special Use Permit. The Applicant subsequently indicated to the County that he
intended to apply for a Special Use Permit (SUP) to legalize the activity. On July 16,2003, a
second enforcement letter was sent to the Applicant because no SUP application had been filed
with the County; this letter indicated legal action would ensue of no further attempt was made by
the Applicant to rectiff the zoning violation. On October 7,2003, a third letter was sent to the
Applicant indicating that since no application had been filed with the County since the violation
was cited (5 months earlier) the matter was being scheduled before the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) for further action.
On October 10,2004, the Applicant submitted a SUP application for-the-"storage of natural
resources', which was subsequ"ntty deemed technically incomplete on October 22,2003' As a
result of no response, the Zoning Enforcement Officer sent a fourth enforcement letter to the
Applicant on March n, ZOO| indicating that the SUP application expired and that the matter will
be again sent to the Bocc so that the iratter would be ieferred to the county Attorney's offrce
for legal action.
Finally, the Applicant met with the Planning Staff for clarification and direction at which time
Staff aided the Applicant in what was needed to submit a complete application. Following this
meeting, additionai information was submitted and deemed technically complete by Staff in a
letter dated June 16, 2OO4 and subsequently scheduled to be heard by the BOCC' This
background covers a l5-month time period auring which time several letters from concerned
neighbors had also been submitted to the County'
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
The Applicants proposal is to store "stone and other natural resources" on approximately 1/3'd of
the g.7 - acre prop"ny. Specifically, this use includes the storage of pallets_of contained stone to
be loaded on and offt.o.k, using-a fork-lift. The hours of operation are from 8:00 Am to 5:00
pM, Monday through Friday. In-earlier correspondence between the Code Enforcement Office
and the Applicant, It *u. stated that Mr. Fred
-sefcovic of Specialty Stone Company stores and^
handles rocks on the property for his business. The Applicant anticipates a maximum number of
trips to and from the property to be between 0 - 2 trips aday'
III. PROPERTYDESCRIPTION
The subject property is located at 0738 County Road 113 (Cattle Creek Road) which is east of
State Highway SZ una north of Cattle Creek which runs through the property. The property
contains-approximately 8.7 acres and is improved by a single-family dwelling' The property
slopes in a southerly iirection away from and south of CR 113. The stone being stored 9n th9
property is located on the northern 1/3'd of the property. The remainder contains alarge fenced
corral, outbuildings, and the single story residenci. cattle creek runs in a westerly direction
across the lower portion of the property and is framed by mature cottonwood vegetation'
The County Assessor's map below shoes the subject property as #250'- The surrounding area
includes the pine Stone operation to the west (down Catile Creek Road and tax #310) which
includes stone yard for wholesale storage u, *.il as stone cutting ability. To the east (up Cattle
Creek Road) is a residence. The north across CR 1 13 contains steep slopes and to the south backs
up directly io BLM land. The map below shows the ownership of the area:
IV. REFERRALS
Staff referred the application out to the following review agencies and or County Departments:
Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District:No comments received
Garfield County Road and Bridge Department: (See Exhibit I)
a.
b.
V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / ZONING
The property is located in Study Area I of the Comprehensive Plan and contemplates this area as
Low-Density Residential. Recently, the four properties just below the Raymond property (also
zoned ARRD) requested the Planning Commission amend the designation of those properties
from Low Density Residential to Commercial and requested the Commission recommend the
Board rezone those four properties from ARRD to Commercial Limited (CL). The Planning
Commission unanimously denied both requests by vote of 7 to 0. Their decision was based on the
following findings among others including:
1. The rezoning was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that the changes have
not occurred in the area significant enough to warrant arezoning;
2. The existing SUPs (Capitol Construction and Pine Stone Properties) effectively served as
a buffer / transition zone from CIL to A/R/RD;
3. The potential traffic impacts will only exacerbate a very dangerous intersection at CR
113, CR 110, two frontage roads, and State Highway 82;
4. The long term plan envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan for that area is and should
remain "low density residential"; and
5. The commercialization of the area will negatively impact the existing visual corridor of
the area.
Ultimately, the Planning Commission felt the "commercial creep" up Cattle Creek should stop at
the Morris property just below the Capitol Construction property and also that the two SUPs
discussed above ,"*L u, an informal regulated transition zone from CL to ARRD. Further, the
Commission felt that the commercial / industrial uses should only be allowed in the area that is
visible from the State Highway 82 corridor at the mouth of Cattle Creek at the bottom of that
drainage.
VI. GARFIELD COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION
3A.s required in the County's Zoning Resolution, special uses shall adequately address the
following three review criteria:
(I) Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted
engineering itandards and approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall
either be in place or shall be constructed in conjanction with the proposed usel
Staff Response
Th" pr"p"*d
"se
is for storage of natural resources only. This use is an un-manned use that does
not require the provision of water or wastewater utilities to serve the use. The application states
that the property does have a well which is also shown on the site plan; however, no well permit
was submitted in the application. This standard is met.
-J
(2) Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the
proposed use and to provide safe, convenient flccess to the use shall either be in place
or shall be constructed in coniunction with the proposed use;
Staff Response
The access to the property is a driveway from CR 113 which connects to the county road and a
very acute angle which makes right hand tums from the property difficult and left hand tums onto
the property difficult. The Road and Bridge Department provided the following comments
(Exhibit I):
1. Accesses should be constructed with a compacted sub-grade, then filled with a compacted
six inch lift of three inch minus, then topped with at least a four inch layer of compacted
314 road base (class 6) material.
2. Compaction should test at 95o/o of modified proctor. Test results should be forwarded to
this office.
3. Access should be flared where they meet the county road and should be a minimum of 40
feet in width.
4. If the County Road is of asphalt or chip and seal, then the access shall be paved with a
min. of 4 inches of asphalt for a minimum distance of 10 feet'
5. All areas of the county road which encroach into or pass through private property should
have a right-of-way deeded to the county at 30 foot from centerline.
6. Access should be graded to follow 2o/o and not more thom3oh slope from edge of road for
a distance of 30 feet.
7 . Accesses should provide a minimum of 250 feet visibility in either direction from a point
10 feet back from the edge ofthe county road.
8. Access should meet the County Road at a 90 degree angle for a minimum distance of 30
feet.
9. Accesses should be inspected by Road and Bridge for compliance upon completion.
At this point, the existing driveway does not meet a majority of these requirements stated by
Road and Bridge is therefore physically inadequate to serve the commercial lindustrial nature of
the vehicles that would access the site.
Traffic Generation
The application states that access to the site is in place. The amount of traffic will be 0 - 2
vehicles aday. There is no discussion of the type of vehicles such as tractor-trailer, flatbeds, etc.
In addition, no mention was made of the trips that are generated from the existing residential use
and related agricultural operations on the property.
As the Board is aware, the intersection of State Highway 82 and CR 113 has been characterized
as one of the most dangerous intersections in Garfield County. A particular component to this
safety issue is the types of large very slow vehicles that enter HW82 traffic which is generally
traveling 70 miles an hour. The Planning Commission was clear that further development up
Cattle Creek needs to be carefully reviewed due to the poor quality of CR 113 and the
intersection of HW82. Additional development will only continue to exacerbate the traffic safety
issue. This standard has not been met.
(3)Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adiacent uses
of land it rouglt installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of
the lot and by tocation of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in
such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character;
Staff Response
Th. p."p"*d use is extremely visible from CR 113 and from the adjacent properties and is not
screened at all. The entire ,rorth"* portion of the lot has been denuded for the placement of
pallets of stone. No attempt has been made to organize the site to minimize the impact on and
from adjacent uses. As mintioned above, the use to the west is Pine Stone which also has a
significant stone storage yard that is also quite visible with little to no screening attempted to
mi-nimize visual impacl. Subject yard is also storing large industrial vehicles and items that are
clearly not "natural .esources." The application states that there will be no lighting, no signs, and
no improvements to access. No landscaping or visual impact mitigation has been proposed with
the use. Staff finds this standard has not been met.
B. Section 5.03.07 [ndustrial Operation
Ind,striut Operations, including extraction, processing, fabrication, industrial support facilities,
mineral *urt* disposal, storag-, sanitary landfill, salvage yard, access routes and utility lines,
shall be permitted, provided:
l) The applicant for a permit for industrial operations shall prepare and submit to the' planniig Direitor ten-(10) ,opint of an impaci statement on the proposed use describi"g ilt
locationl scope, design 'oni ,oittruction schedule, including an elPlanyli\n -o{ i.ts
operatiinal iharacter"istics. One (1) copy of the imp-act statement shall be frled-ytith tle
iounty Commissioners by the Pla'nning biiector. fhe impact statement shall address the
following:
a) Existing lawful use of h,ater through depletion or pollution of surface run'off, stream
Jlow or ground waterl
Staff Response
As stated above, the use itself, outside storage of natural resources will not be required to
utilize water or wastewater utilities. This standard does not apply.
b) Impacts on adjacent land from the generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or
vibration, or other emanations;
Staff Finding
The act of pailets of stone / rock being stored does not itself generate any significant amounts
of vapor, dust, noise, smoke, glare, or vibration. The trucks used to transport the materials to
and around the site will generate limited noise, dust, smoke, and vibration. No additional
information was provided as to how stone is organized at the site. A fork-lift can generate
noise, dust, and smoke as it may travel through the site. Staff observed this exact activity on
the adjacent Pine Stone proPertY.
c) Impacts on wildlde and domestic animals through the c-reution- of hazardous' attiactions, alteraiion of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes,
use patterns or other distuPtions;
Staff Finding
The Applicant states that there will be no impact on wildlife and domestic animals as a
result on tt " proposed operation which is proposed to occur on a relatively small
portion of the property. No supporting data was submitted to the county to justiff this
i"rponr". Normally, Staff requires at least an analysis of the Wildlife Resource
Information System (WRIS) developed by the Division of Wildlife which maps wildlife
in Garfield County. There is no information to determine, if any, what the impacts to
wildlife exist by the use on the property. This standard has not been met.
d) Afjirmatively show the impacts of truck and automobile traffic to and from such
uses and their impacts to ureas in the County;
Staff Finding
As mentioned above, the Applicant states the operation generates 0 - 2 daily trips to the
site. There was no information submitted defining the types of vehicles that will visit
the property as well as any existing traffic generated from the other activities on the
property. As stated above, because the intersection of State Highw ay 82 and CR 1 13 is a
du.rg".o6 intersection, any addition slow moving trucks added will only further impact
an already poor intersection.
e) That sufJicient distances shall separate such use from abutting property which
might olherwise be damaged by operations of the proposed use(s);
Staff Finding
The application states that there is sufficient distance between abutting properties; both
abutting properties are "storing." The adjacent Pine Stone rock storage yard directly
abuts thii property. In fact, it is difficult to separate the two yards at a quick glance.
However, ihe property to the south (Robinson) is a residential property which does not
share the ,u*" itore storage activity. There appears to be significant vegetation
screening between the two properties' This standard is met.
fl Mitigation measures proposed for alt of the fgyegoing impacts identiJied and for- the itandards identified in Section 5.03.08 of this Resolution
Staff Finding
The Applicunl do"r not propose any mitigation for impacts generated from the proposed
operations and further states that there is nothing to mitigate.
2) Permits may be granted for those uses with provisions that provide adequate
mitigation for the following:
a) A plan for site rehabilitation must be approve( by the lounty Commissioners.
before i permitfor conditional or special use will be issued;
b) Tile Cointy Commissioners may iequire security before a permit for special or
6
conditional use is issued, if required. The applicant shall furnish evidence of a,
bank commiiment of creidit,'bond, certified check or other security deemed
acceptable iy int Coiunty Commissioners in the amount calculated by the County
Commissioiers to ,rrlr" the execution of the site rehabilitation plan .in
workmanlike manner and in accordance witi the specilications and construction
schedule established or approved by the County Commis-sioners' Such
commitmenrts, bonds or clftZ* shall he payable to and held by the County
Commissionersl
c) Impacts set fiith in the impact statement and compliance with the standards'
"oitoined
in-section 5.03.08 of this Resolution'
Staff Finding
The Applicant provided no site rehabilitation plan to the County. As is generally the
practice^of the bounty Vegetation Manager, should the use be approved, the Applicant
would be required to complete the following:
A. Inventory and mapping-The Applicant shall map and inventory the property for
County listed noxious weeds.
B. Weed Management-The Applicant shall provide a weed management plan for the
inventoried noxious weeds.
This standard has not been met.
C. Section 5.03.08 Industrial Performance Standards
All industrial operations in the Corrnty shall comply with applicable County, State' and
Federal regulations regulating water, aii and noise pollution and shall not be conducted in a
manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard. Operations shall be conducted in such a
manner as to minimizeheat,dust, smoke, vibration, glare and odor and all other undesirable
environmental effects beyond the boundaries of the property in which such uses are located,
in accord with the following standards:
1) Volume of sound generated shall compty .ilry the standurds set forth in the colorado
Revised Statutes ai the time any new application is made'
Staff Finding
The Applicant states the volume of sound is completely within state standards' The
Applicant did not provide any supporting analysis indicating what "completely within state
standards" meant or how it was determined. As the Board is aware, the county uses the
Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS 25-12-101) for determining noise impacts- The Statute
states "Sound levels of noise radiatingfrom a property line at a distance of 25 feet or more
there from in excess i-f the dB(A.t es;,ilished ju ilrn Tottowing time periods and zones shall
constitute (premai;d "tidr*" that such noise is a public nuisance." The table below
shows the zones and dB(A) acceptable for each zone and particular time'
Zone TamtoTpm TpmtoTam
Residential ss dB(A)s0 dB(A)
Commercial 60 dB(A)ss dB(A)
Lig,ht Industrial 6s dB(A)70 dB(A)
Industrial 80 dB(A)7s dB(A)
7
Based on past practice, Staff finds that noise impacts should be measured as they relate to
the receiver propertier 1tfr" neighbors), and 2) the "zone" classifications offered by the
statute (in the table above) referio the actual use on the property rather than the underlying
Garfield County zone district designations'
Since the standard requires that the "volume of sound generated shall comply with the
standards set forth in itre Colorado Revised Statutes at the time any new application is
made. Because the applicant did not provide any information as to the volume of sound
generated, this standard is not met.
2) Vibration generated: every use shall be so operated that the ground vibration-'
inhe:remtly"and recuryently generated is not peyceyti!,1e, without instruments' at any
point of iny boundary tinb i1*e property on which the use is located;
Staff Finding
The Applicant states that there are no vibrations produced on the property. Staff believes
that the vibration would not be detected at the property boundaries of a truck entering,
parking, or leaving the property. Staff finds this standard is met.
3) Emissions of smoke and particulate matter: every use shall be operated so as to
comply with all Federal, State and County air quality laws, regulations and
standards;
Staff Finding
The Applicant states that they are completely within all federal, state, and county air quality
laws. It appears the only emissions generated would come from the exhaust (diesel fumes)
of the trucks as they *u* up (idle)Jeave, or enter the property. Once properly parked and
engines turned off, the emissions would also cease. If only 2 vehicle trips enter and leave
the site each day, it appears that there will be a low emission of particulate matter and
smoke as a result. As the standard requires, every use shall be operated to comply with
county, state, and federal laws. Staff does not test these emissions but believes that since the
only emissions comes from the exhaust from vehicles that are licensed by the county and
the state to comply with federal air quality laws, this standard is assumed to be met'
4) Emission of heat, glare, radiatiory and fumes: eu:.rJ: use shall be so operated that it
does not "mit'iioi itiit, ioiiation or"fumes whi.ih substantially interfere with the
existing use of adjoining property o, *"hirh constitutes a public nuisance or hazard'
ihrnlg of Sitiii iirirZy *orning signals, reJlective pailting of. storage. tanks, or.
other such operations which *oy En ,iq"irid iy law ai safety ir air pollution control
measures shill te exempted from this provision;
Staff Finding
The Applicant states that the use will not produce heat, glare, radiation, or fumes' As trucks
make deliveries to and from the site, therl will be minimal impacts generated from the use
as the trucks sit parked on the property. Only minimal engine heat and fumes from exhaust
will occur as the trucks leave and enter the property at fairly random intervals. As a result,
Staff finds this standard is met.
5) Storage area, sulvage yard, sanitary landiitt and mineral waste disposal areas:
a) Storage of flammable or explosive solids or gases shall be in accordance with' accep"ted stindards and luwi and shall comply with the national, state and local
fire'codes and written recommendations/cimments from the appropriate local
"protection district regarding compliance with the appropriate codes;
Staff Finding
The Applicunt do"r not propose to store any flammable or explosive solids or gases on
the property. This standard is met.
b) At the discretion of the County Commissioners, all outdoor storage facilities may
be required to be inclosed by jence, landscaping or wall adequate to conceal such
fa cilitie s fr o m adi ac e nt p r op e rty ;
Staff Finding
The entire ,6" ir the act of outdoor storage. Applicant states that there already exists a
natural wall from the road. Staff believes the yard is extremely visible from CR 113 as
well as from the properties to the south. This is always a difficult issue where the
topography is suchthat the only way to adequately screen the use from a higher view is
to-UuitA a 50 foot wall. In this case, the ability to berm and plant screening vegetation
could be achieved by the use of fill that would be required on the inside of the driveway
at the top if the property. So, as it stands, the use is extremely visible and practical
measures of visual screening appear to be difficult. As stated in the standard, it is the
discretion of the Board as to weather screening is required by the use of fence,
landscaping, or wall. At present, no mitigation efforts were proposed by the Applicant'
This standard has not been met.
c) No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a ploperty in such form or manner
that they iay be transferred oif the property by any reasonably foreseeable
natural causes or forces;
Staff Finding
The Applicant indicates there will be no storage of materials or waste which could be
transferred offthe property by any reasonably foreseeable natural causes or forces. It is
highty unlikely ttrat pattets oi stone / rock stored on the property will be transferred off
thE pioperty by anyieasonably foreseeable natural causes or forces. Should the Board
uppioui the requesi, Staff suggests this standard be included as an on-going condition of
approval.
d) Storage of Heavy Equipment will only be allowed subiect to (A) and (C) above and
the following standards :
t,
tr.
,u.
The minimum lot size is five (5) acres and is not a platted subdivision'
iin "iiip^nnt ttoiigi"orriis not placed any iloser than 300 ft from any
existiis iesidential dwelling.Tiii'iitiiTii;;;;;;;-;itfie enctosed in an area with screening.at teast-eight
$) feet'in height ind obscured from view at the same elevstion or tower'
9
tv.
oo
Screenins mav include berming, landscaping, sight obscuring fencing or a
combinaiion if any of these methods.;;;;;ii';'yi1-fiii;;;;,:; i;?i;?* requ.iring the use.'f ;1tr:l;l:i;:,"if,1,*'llsenerate notse, odors or glare b-eyond the property
"rZ'iTiiiri';i;iir-i"tiitiins'i-i i"taiiii dutt'ins'thi hoturs of I a'm' to 6 p'm"
Mon.-FrL
Loading und unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property and
;;i iri ie conducted 6n any public right'of-wa1"
Staff Finding
The Applicait states that there will be no heavy trucks stored at the site as part of the
proposed use. During the site visit, Staff observed several large vehicles on the site
which witt be shown to the Board in the presentation. As a result, the Applicant is
already in violation of the proposed use. This standard is not met'
e) Any storage area for uses not associated with natural resources shull not exceed
ten (10) acres in size.
Staff Finding
The entire pr;perty is les than 10 acres. staff finds this standard does not apply'
fl Any lighting of storage area shall be pointed downward and inward to the
prop"rfi iritnr"ond snided to prevent direct reflection on adiacent property'
Staff Finding
The Applic# states there will be no lighting. Should the Board approve the request,
Staff suggests the Board include this standard as an on-going condition. This standard is
met.
6) lVater pollution: in a case in which potential.hazards exist, it shall be necessary to
install ,riii'io-id, desisned io ii*pf;, -*r* !!n. Regulations d.the Environmental
protection \grnry befoTe operation'of the facilities iay begin. All percolation tests or
ground. watei resource tests as *o7, i-, req"uired by local or State Health OfJicers must
Ze met before operation of the facilities may begin'
Staff Finding
The basic act of storing stone does not itself represent a potential pollution hazard' Since
the application only proposes a maximum of 2 vehicle trips a day, there is a relatively low
risk for pollution. This standard is met'
VII. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
l. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of
County Commissioners.
That the hearing before the Board of County Commissionels was extensive and complete'
that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties
were heard at that meeting.
10
That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed special use permit is not in the
best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of
the citizens of Garfield CountY.
4. That the application is not in conformance with Sections 5.03, 5.03.07, and 5.03.08 of the
Garfield County ZoningResolution of 1978, as amended'
VIII.RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners deny the request for the special use
permit based on the following deficiencies in the application:
1) Inadequate driveway to support the commercial lindustrial nature if the vehicle type that
will access the ProPertY;
2) No wildlife analYsis Provided;
3) No visual screening mitigation proposed;
4) No reclamation Plan ProPosed;
5) Inconsistent with intent to store heavy machinery;
6) No noise analYsis Provided; and
7) Inconsistent with the Low Density Residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan.
J.
11
10) Visual corridor
A number of uses are allowed in commercial zoning. Tough to get hands around impact.
County did a traffic study last year. Very serious issue from a safety standpoint today.
Increased trips are a big issue. With an SUP you can mitigate these issues somewhat.
Rezoning doesn't give the County an opportunity to mitigate these issues.
Objective 4.5 inthe Comprehensive Plan states: "Ensure that commercial development is
conducive to safe and efficient traffic flow reduces vehicular movements and encourages
altemate transportation modes and the use of mass transit." At least 20'h rncrease will
occur if this is approved. That hits threshold that CDOT would come back to the County
to say someone needs to pony up and pay for upgrades to this intersection. That is a huge
expense. Staff doesn't believe changing zoningwill reduce vehicular movement.
Objective 4.6 states: Ensure that the type, size, and scope of industrial and commercial
development are consistent with the long-term land use objectives of the county." This
area is designated "LDR" in comprehensive plan. The proposal directly conflicts with
the suggested designation. The question is how much change and should it be there?
Objective 4.7 states: "Ensure that Zoning Regulations addressing Commercial and
Industrial uses reflect land use patters and demographics of the County and encourage the
further diversification of the County's economy." Still believe SUP provides flexibility
in this particular area. No wastewater system available in this area or central water at this
time.
Properties are located within area identified as a visual corridor, which encourages
.p".iul attention be given to visual impacts from any development proposed. This is
dlsignated on map *itt l., the comprehensive plan. Question of transition zone. The
value of an SUP is a good review process and zoning tool. Provides flexibility.
There was a question about the "pinch point". Fred drove the area and could not
distinguish that point. The issue there more than anything else is the issue of adjacency.
If you can achieve adjacency then you become eligible to request rezoning. If you don't
have adjacency then you fall under spot zoning. Transition zone buffered. Still
somewhat confused as to how this pinch point will stop commercial zoning from
creeping up this road further.
Comp. Plan Section 4 states why areas are designated what they are. It also talks about
site suitability analysis.
Fred showed the A/R/RD zone district uses by right on screen. CIL zone district uses by
right were shown next. They are much more extensive'
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny request to amend comprehensive
plan and recommend to the BOCC to deny the rezone request for the three properties
o
requesting that. Changes have not occurred in the area significant enough to warrant a
rezoning. "IJses by right are unregulated."
No questions were asked of staff at this time so we moved out to the Applicant's for their
presentation.
Representing the four Applicants tonight is Davis Farrar who lives at 0165 Basalt
Mountain Drive. Also here are Doug & Patty Mochrie and Mr. Pine.
Applicants contacted adjoining neighbors about proposal as suggested by Commission
pieulousty. Davis guu. hirtory on Cattle Creek drainage western end of Cattle Creek and
iligh*uy- 82 intersiction east Y, mrles. 7992 Garfteld County recognized west end of
Caitle ireek for commercial area. Rezoned Carl Midland & Unical property. In 2003,
County reaffirmed Cattle Creek application for commercial property. Morris property
,.ron.d from A/R/RD to Commercial, Character of neighborhood changed over time.
They recognize the same dilemma as the County as to where do we stop commercial
development.
Davis addressed some of stafPs comments next. Never suggested pinch point is where to
stop commercial development and zoning. Davis showed picture and pointed out where
parcels are located as well as surrounding zoning and uses.
Applicants disagree. They do think there have been substantial changes to the character
of thir area. The SUP's granted in this area have changed the character of area. They are
not trying to say SUP's are stepping stone to zoning change. Character of neighborhood
is the reaion for their position. No longer represents "LDR" for this area. (1 unit per 10
acres) Photographs were produced that shows what is out there now.
o View-shed: Highway 82 is an important view shed.
o Geog;raphic pinch point; major topographic feature; CR 113 tums to the
N.E. and nilrrows down.
o Comprehensive Plan designation: is this area LDR or General
Commercial.
o Subject properties t/zmrle from public transportation'
. Highway 82 intersection is a problem; they aren't denying that.
Development or not it's a problem at this time. Should be addressed
already.
o Objective 4.2: compatibilitY
o Objective 4.4: locating commercial in appropriate areas
. Objective 4.5: conducive to safe traffic flow
. Objective 4.7: ensure zoning regulations reflect changing land use patterns
. Objective 4.8: Commercial Industrial development is environmentally
sound and acceptable to County residence.
County staff found Morris application met those issues. Aerial photos illustrate the
changes to the area with commercial uses of the area.
Don't suggest comprehensive plan and zone change continue up Cattle Creek. SUP
mechanism to govem a use that the County may or may not want to see happening.
Staffs concem with non-availability of central water and sewer. Would suggest Hue Mart
location has central water and sewer. You don't see a lot of big box retail in that area.
Small businesses, industrial uses, and warehouse uses are what you see in the Hue Mart
area now. A11 which appear to be compatible to that area. These are the types of uses
that would locate to Cattle Creek area.
Character of area no longer agricultural or LDR. Character is commercial and light
industrial. Future uses are limited by market conditions and site factors.
Mike Deer questioned water at Hue Mart. He said they have a well. Mark agreed. No
pre-packing plant for sewer and water.
Moved out to the public for comments and or questions next. Louis Meyer, who lives at
3648 CR 113, spoke first. His property is four (4) miles up the road. He made a few
observations. First, as a Civil Engineer, he recognizes growth in County. He suggests
we get back to smart growth. Don't prevent growth, be smarter about it. Small
implemental growth we don't do a good job reviewing like we do big projects. No water
and sewer at CMC turn off. People's wells have gone dry in the area. There is no fire
flow. Traffic issue is very serious. Not srnart growth. Once this project is rezoned and
comprehensive plan changed, the next property owner will want to change' No
consideration in serving this area for water and sewer. Louis is also involved with RF
Water and Sanitation District. Recommend you deny this.
Gary Jones who lives at 908 Pitkin Avenue spoke next. He has one observation and a
question. He has purchased property on Cattle Creek. That is a very narrow road and is
not conducive for larger vehicles and large numbers of cars or trucks. What can
developer gain from commercial designation that they do not already have through a
SUP?
Jim Robinson lives at912 CR 113 and he says the pinch point described doesn't exist.
When standing on his property he can view everything below him. Suggest that staff go
back and review Pine Stones SUP. Number of vehicles that were allowed under that
approval is being exceeded. Recommend what these people need isn't this.
Wewer Keohane of 4618 CR 113 spoke next and she has lived here for over 13 years. A
huge mistake was made in 1992 when we allowed rezoning. Morris property has been
cleaned up. Intersection problem; nalrowness of road; people drive over the speed limit.
Please don't let this happen.
Richard Dalley lives at 3838 Cattle Creek Road. He is a member of a group of
homeowners in this area. Intersection at Cattle Creek and Highway 82 has nine entries at
that intersection. Very dangerous. What is the purpose of the zone change? Haven't
o
going from Pine Stone are
heard anything about that. Sizes of vehicles coming and
massive.'Speeders are out of control on this road'
calvin Lee spoke next. He lives at 0730 cR 113,4 miles up cattle Creek Road' He led
opposition of Sanders Ranch. He is not against g.oIth Commercial growth belongs in
municipalities. Commercial doesn't belorig here-in this area' Pinch point should be at
Highway 82. SUP .un l*por. conditions fo, ,r. on a property. If you change this from
an SUP then all of those reviews are gone. All commercial uses n CIL zone district
could be allowed. can't predict what will be desirable. Recommend denial'
Steve Kenny lives at 1000 Cattle Creek Road. (The pinch point) He can hear what's
going on in the area. Pinch point is an issue. Visual rmpact; traffic biggest problem; no
traffic control; naffow road. Pine stone is already in violation under SUP' Please deny
this. Our valley is already wrecked now. Need a good plan to protect us in the future'
Lise Sansom who lives at 1613 Cattle Creek Road spoke next' She appreciates the staff s
time they put into this. She is a school bus driver and she drives that road daily' It is a
difficult, very narrow and scary road. Think about safety issue' Many of the lots in the
area are still "LDR". Encourage denial'
No other speakers so public portion of hearing is closed'
Mr. Pine spoke next. His desire is to change from SUP to Commercial so every time he
wants to make u "f,ung.
he won't have io come in and amend his SUP' He has no
intention in taking- o;.? p.op"rty to the south of him and change to a quarry' That is
absurd to him. Don,t know about increased traffic, doesn't think so. Every decision
would take months and months. Nature of business won't be changing' Value of land is
the business itself.
Questions were taken from staff next. Bob asked Mr. Pines how many times he had been
before P&z for changes to his SUP. Mr. Pine said if he wants to make a change in a
placement of a buildiig he can't do without coming in to modify SUP' Other items as
well, but he doesn't *it to bring them up' Mr. Pine is amazed that the neighbors are so
opposed now.
Christina has a procedural question. Public portion of hearing is closed correct?
Christina noted one thing. This area doesn't appeal to be "LDR"' Present zoning is
A/R/RD. Her point is eslsentially that there is ttot u lot of permanent stuf-f going on out
there. use as an SUP consistent with that zone district. commercial development
belongs in municipality. wanted to reiterate she pays taxes and she expects the roads to
be reasonably safe. Need to work with Highway bepartment in this area' Don't need to
compound the problem. Obligatio" to a.riy the appiication for that reason' In terms of
having a difficult time runnin[ a business and having to ask for SUP, understands that is
burdensome. Possibly relocate to a commercial property'
6
Mike believes that this body has to work hard at changing zone districts' He drives that
road to visit friends and it's a nalrow and dangerous road. Feel like we must deny this'
Doesn't think Mr. Pine's SUP is an appealing It ing. Mr' Pine should be commended for
running a descent business. Long
-tist
o1 ,rtti by right rn CIL zone district are
inappropriate for the area.
cheryl agfees with Mike's comments. Nobody has a clue about right of way in this area'
Michelle said the Commission worked long and hard on the Comprehensive-Plan' When
vo, rru"" a plan and a vision, you have to fottow it. Buffer zone created for that reason'
Fred suggests addressing the comprehensive Plan issue first and following with rezoning'
Don said to name property owners for rezoning'
Mike made a motion that the planning commission move to deny application to amend
the Comprehensive plan from LDR to Commercial for a1l four (4) subject properties'
Michelle seconded the motion. A11 approved motion to deny unanimously'
Mike made a motion to deny application for rczoning for 3P Propert-ies, capital
construction and the Dawso n/zyetzproperties from A/R/RD to C/L' Michelle seconded
the motion. A11 approved motion to deny'
other business. The Glenwood springs Planning commission wants to do a combined
meeting with our Planning Commissioi to dir.rr. the Four Mile area' March 30th is the
proposed meeting date.
Mark mentioned priority list for training'
Christina will be gone the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting in April'
No other business so meeting is adjoumed'
RECilVED
AUG 1 I 2004
G r.rrrrt n cnl ]NTY
8U i'ur Ni-.,'l P i"r'l';ir I NG
Telephone (970) 945 857 I
800 229 7238
EXHIBIT
tt
-c.oog
CALVIN LEE
Attorney at Law
81 1 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs E-Mail
Colorado 81601
Fax (970)945 4981
blakellaw@@sopris.net
August 17,2004
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 - 8'h Street
Room 201
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Garfield County Attorney
108 - 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
re: Raymond property
Dear Building and Planning Department and County Attorney:
I represent David James Robinson.
Enclosed is a copy of a letter to me dated June 23,2004 signed by John Martin. Please note that
i1the first paragraph, Mr. Martin states that the Raymond Property has received no permission to
violate the Garfield County ZoningCode while its application for a special use permit is pending
and that the property owner has represented that all uses of the property not authorizedby the
zoning code have ceased. Mr. Martin further states that the county commissioners have asked
the code enforcement officer to confirm the statement.
On August g,2}O4,rny client, Mr. Robinson, and his wife, Kim, observed Fred Sefcovik of
Specialty Stone loading a semi-truck with stone at 3:30 PM. And on August 16,2004, there was
a semi-truck loaded with stone waiting on the Raymond Property to be unloaded. These
incidents are in violation of the zoning code and my client requests that appropriate action be
taken, including a court injunction.
Also, please add this letter to the staff report for the special use hearing currently scheduled for
October 4,2004. If the Raymond Property can not follow the zoning restrictions now, it is an
indication it witl fail to follow any conditions attached to a special use permit. A special use
permit is a privilege, not a right. If a property owner abuses the current zoning regulations on his
property, then the properly owner can not expect to be granted additional privileges.
cc: David James Robinson
Sincerelv.
O1/16/2884 AB: 83 37A7841.7
fa'-
BO
o
RLI
EXHIBIT
o.E
og
o
-lffgvHD
((w
ttrW ,4,+warf 3 A/ - ??Za
efldrA a)D€ NFafiiz-ffi/T
{/rn Eo o trzs aa,/
?tZ- Atu tt3
Ory*n-6oruartt€-
r; i:{
SEP I 6 2r/r,4
:
',i
flr.orn
i
I
DglL
/+r
{H/E/
7 O f- ,* or,)f -rv'a y' E
AOeu+* ffiay' 72
7u, tfu A tta5
Q6gsuw @ Ory{tt<- u*MV f/wet1(- J
,li@e{Zp? 77L*-ctLj (a1v4772c-- Sarfu s: r*r
fH WgC- F*ineuq sx) A.fl-- / t3,
/lr 7aa r*oN **r{-aU T
orjSALt@ G ) O ru1 5firt-- u4+c4 fVt*,nrs7'rt*
C h?>rrn+ fui-t<tcj Ctl*Ctlfu 5"/-r€p,/ L, *r
,T(tr ft4xr€ a€s:trpttu " olv d-/t- lt 3 .
,ef ft f frYl dtu ? -tr-ay' 'Z 'ru Sgrrubo
,flzLe Strfaltc- dF s?rwzat.ft-Tq )f6n5-
h,ry,rnU *q* fgtl- {r?i^,%- Ldlf,r* tr**q;
DF 57VnF *f 4* f*/4.q+i*)e faa'a"4l
, Or'.) d4* // 3.
| flir?tc fiaa t*rtu
fl@ ///ot$aa*rt
;fi;f;b:|-#-|#ffi;
EXHIBF
108 8th street, suite Il0, Glenwood springs, colorado 81601-3363
(e7o) 384-soo7 (970) 945-1377, ext. 4007 j smi th@garfi e ld- c oun tY. c om
GarJield Cd
!r3
rdffiEm
d
F
.,.ffi;tPlti{J
i-, . )|
,imffi
E
I
I
I II
E
I
IIro
108 8th Street,
(970) 384-5007
Suite ll0, Glenwood Springs,
(970) 945-1377. ext. 4007
iolorado 81601-3363
j s mi th @,gar fi e ld- c oun ty. c om
II I
ffi
U
rl
T
CT
ol
Ii,
:+rlo'
lf\
T
i *-!*9
tl.t/,1
I\,:
I',
I \,1
x
1-r'., --i', '/ ar., \-',. I r:i \d/'r
( s't.L {\r,,lc L Co"t r{q,CO,
! l7:-t.
25tre,
).'1v'
7-.. .
t-\*r1.,=\r\
Xa<"t L^rl.q (
(^
*9,\.J
iI;#
fJ#
a'$1-
fv/t
Gov[. L,,t Fj
ChA-:c'S3")5'3a' €-
?-oq.61'
-> g()'c:'?; ?- 1" t!-lZZ.2r+' j
I Gout. ' L.,'l 5
Ftu.rrvt
G.rvl, Lol. I
{]l;=:\d'l'l
grrepared by me and tlnder
ancl Apri,l, l9B) and that
knowledge and belief.
Sc_a_L.z '. lr: pao
2q'l3"E- 2ll'Ll3'
u.c:
my directthe same
ft\tef u''Lt?'c)4'',
6'\^/.I ',i€.,
,lh' .-' ,
''R..
! 9= l2_Z(1.1o
vP
,f,l.f.rt
(0t
Ci
c.l
-#(n
\,
)
t - inAZaLe*s 1',r",t\i-ret.rts
o- t nficnles >a,L't'etxt 7mr'lrQe"t L.s, lt{lll
-\:J- E--<;4L,, $- -Ta -4jfiriffit ir;Cffj;;i,'ij''f
t H- f;1 I t ff ffi"brtr5;',n,u1'", "
=>G-r"rl*q) O ' ,O'8
!rN
Byr
ri 'l 4111
Sy ey
t../e/ .s'
Y.lorl', u .,',.',r[ -.y'-
( \ {=or])
ltusdsrr
BY: LINES IN SI
ilourr LtNCtcoME (L.s HA
AOX I2I CARBONDALE, COLO. 3OL
scALEi!_":r S fUrr. l?8
f,ar,1t,tcrn, L
^i
.-,_\\ _,]*t.? r,
- - --- -.,i dj r,,,, 5r :'a{a{lri,titi*'pj - ..j.
,1,iri z
=4 5" 47-' r 1r'.t" €7.t5. ) t 7'-*--1-\ (.'
.eb
r- /x
-r6.31'
(Y.
I hereby certify that this srlrvey lwassupervision dtrring the mont;iis of l$a.rch
is truerBnd corrqQt to the best of m.y