Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.01 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 11.08.06lr Planning Commission Meeting Minutes From Novpmber 812006 PC Members Present Staff Present Fred Jarman, B&P Director David Pesnichak, Planner Carolyn Dahlgren, Assistant County Atty. BFhsm CelbftL.fud Seseffia Ehil Y&gh Roll call was taken and the following members are Jacober and Steve Reynolds. absent tonight: Bob Fullerton, Jock Cheryl Chandler made a motion to approve the minutes from the September 13,2006 Planning Commission meeting with correction noted. Bruce Jensen seconded the motion. A vote was taken and all approved unanimously. The first item of discussion is a public hearing request to review a Preliminary Plan application for the Creek Side Estates Subdivision. The property is located 4 miles north of the City of Rifle on State Highway 325. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 15.37 acres into 6lots. The applicant is Mark Sills. Present for the Applicant are Davis Farrar of Western Slope Consulting and his address is 0165 Basalt Mountain Drive. Also present is Deric Walters of Boundaries Unlimited and his address is 823 Cooper Avenue. Phil Vaughan reviewed the process we would follow for this hearing. First Carolyn Dahlgren will review noticing documentation and testimony and if deemed adequate we will proceed with hearing. Staff will present the project information and staff comments first and that will be followed by questions from the Commission. Next we will move out to the applicants for their presentation again followed by questions from Commission. Next we will move out to the public for any questions or comments and then back to the Commission for summation and hopefully a motion. All Planning Commission members present tonight will be regular voting members. Carolyn Dahlgren questioned Davis Farrar about noticing requirements. Was certified return receipt mailing of notice done between September 9m and October 9,2C[l6. Davis said the mailing was done on l0l6/2ffi6. He did not receive all of the green cards back but he did receive envelope with an address that was not good. Did not receive green card back on 2other envelopes. The owner of the property is Mark Sills. The notice included a legal and practical description of the property as well as all the particulars for tonight's hearing. Property was posted with the notice on 1015106 and notice was published in the Glenwood Post Independent on 101812006. Have a picture of sign that is r. posted on the property. Davis did not check today to see if sign was still in place. Sign was visible from State Highway 325. Mr. Sills indicated that sign is still in place and posted. Carolyn Dahlgren stated all appears to be in line so it is okay to proceed. David Pesnichak is the County Planner on this project and he will enter exhibits into the record: Exhibit A: Mail Receipts Exhibit B: Proof of Publication Exhibit C: Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended Exhibit D: Garfield County 7-oningResolution of 1978, as amended Exhibit E: Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 Exhibit F: Application Exhibit C: Siaff Memorandum Exhibit H: I-etter from Jake Mall of GarCo Road & Bridge dated 9127106 Exhibit I: Email from Dan Roussin of CDOT dated 1016106 Exhibit J: lrtter from Jonathan White of Colorddo Geological Survey dated 1019106 Exhibit K: ktter from Steve Anthony of GarCo Vegetation Management dated 10116106 Exhibit L: lrtter from Chris Hale of Mountain Cross Engineering dated 10119106 Exhibit M: Letter from Craig Lis of the Colorado Office of the State Engineer dated 10/18/06. Exhibits A - M are accepted into the record. David Pesnichak will present the staff comments and project information. This is a review of a Preliminary Plan Application for the Creek Side Estates Subdivision which is located four miles nortl of th" -ity of Rifle on State Highway 325. Access to the property will be off of Highway 325. Six lots are proposed from this L5.37 acre property. Sewer is proposed to be served by ISDS and water will be supplied from a central well which will distribute to each of the lots. The property is currently zoned A/R/RD which has a maximum lot coverage of l1%o and a building height maximum of 25' from un- disturbed grade. The minimum setbacks for this property are, in the front 75' from the street centerline or 50' from the front lot line; sides are 10' and the rear is 25'. A proposed site plan was shown for the preliminary plan. Presently there is a home on this 15.37 acre property which is proposed to be located on Lot 6. Much of the proposed t5.37 acres are deed restricted due to existing wetlands which restricts disturbance in these areas. Plat notes concerning wetlands must be included on the final plat. There are significant wetlands along Rifle Creek. Creek Side Drive is proposed to be 600' in length. A 30,000 gallon pond for fire protection will be fed by the well. Aerial photos of the property were shown. These photos were taken were also shown from David's site visit. Photos Issues:o Site distance / access permit has been issued but no notice to proceed has occurred. o Disturbed are calculation, o Selenium treatment. o Fire protection pond. Possible maintenance problem. o Will need to obtain Potable Water Well Permit before Final Plat. Augmentation plan does allow water to be diverted to pond. Junior water rights. o Slope and Stability. Need to know where ISDS should be placed in to escarpment. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary Plan Application for Creek Side Estates Subdivision with the t7 conditions listed in the staff report on pages 15-17 . Sean Martin asked staff what is selenium. David Pesnichak responded that it is a heavy metal. Moved out to the applicant for their presentation next. Davis Farrar will speak frst. A general vicinity site map was shown and views of the site were also shown. The Sketch Plan Application for Creek Side Estates was presented to the Planning Commission back on June 12,2OO2. On June 11,2003 the original Preliminary Plan was submitted. The current Preliminary Plan was submitted on August 1,2006. This hearing tonight with the Planning Commission is for review of the Preliminary Plan Application. The density proposed is six lots from 15+ acres which will all be over 2 acres in size each. Central water system will be used with individual R.O. systems. Sewer systems will be engineered ISDS which will be set back from Rifle Creek. Access to the subdivision will be off of State Highway 325 to a publicly dedicated private maintenance cul-de-sac. An internal dead end public road is proposed to provide access to each of the six lots. Road will terminate with a cul-de-sac. Dedication to the public of the internal road will take place. Fire protection will be handled from the proposed 30,000 gallon pond. No ADU's are proposed, only single-family dwellings. Will have a restriction of the maximum one dog per lot and that will also be reflected in their covenants. They have covenants and deed restrictions to protect wetland areas on the property. Applicant is planning on relocating the existing drive from State Highway 325 to the north in order to facilitate the development of proposed lot I as well as facilitate site distance requirements for CDOT. Davis Farrar would like to respond to staff recofllmended conditions next. CDOT issue: Will acquire notice to proceed; right-of-way dedication-will note on final plat. Will meet with County Engineer before the BOCC hearing. Will incorporate wetland information. Securities: Part of SIA. Will incorporate HP GeoTech issues on final plat and covenants. Will resolve all issues with County Engineer. Will show all easements on plat. Will pay all applicable impact fees. o o a a a a a . Will revise language in covenants concerning ADU's and dogs. o Will reference State Forest document on the final plat. Deric Walters would like to speak next. Concerning the potable water system, treatment of selenium will be through R.O. systems. Estimated water use is 2000 gallons a day. Put an in house R.O. system for treatment of 20-30 gallons a day for drinking water to remove selenium. Will continue working with Chris Hale, County Engineer. The pond for fire protection is actually larger than 30,000 gallons and it will be a lined pond. All ISDS will be designed by Colorado State Registered Engineers. Setbacks will be placed back from escarpment. They are required to stay back at least 50'. Took questions from Commission next. Sean Martin asked where yard water is going to come from. Deric Walters said along with the junior irrigation rights there are easements that are written on the plat allowing homeowners to get to that central ditch that exists there. Sean asked is the 2000 gallon usage figured into the yearly average. Sean also asked about filling the pond because water rights are junior and there is a dry year then are you just going to fill it out of the well. Deric said they will use well for evaporative loss only. Cheryl Chandler asked, if you didn't line the pond, with the high water wouldn't it stay fuIl. Deric Walters said they didn't want to take that chance. Cheryl asked if the roads are privately maintained. Davis Farrar responded they will be dedicated to the public. Cheryl also mentioned that the subdivision regulations only allow one dog per household which needs to be listed on the final plat. Cheryl asked about foundations. Deric reiterated that foundations will have to be engineered. Phil Vaughan wants to be clear on irrigation water, the DVR is noting 1000 square feet of landscaping to be fed off of the well and that information will be included on the final plat so the HOA will be involved in overseeing the use. Deric Walter indicated yes. Phil also brought up the selenium question related to in house treatment. Phil understands the reasoning behind it. The question is how is the State going to look at that when you are relying on homeowners to take care of that. Davis Farrar responded that this is not a community water system under that state classification so he isn't awate that the state would be requiring testing on selenium. Deric Walter said this isn't a central water system mandated by them. Davis said there will be a notice to homeowners to maintain the system. Staff agrees this is not a central system because it's under 24 people. Cheryl Chandler asked David Pesnichak about under where it says "access to" under staff recommendations, it says "prior to" is that prior to BOCC? David Pesnichak said prior to the application for'final plat. Moved out to the public for comments next. None were received so that portion of hearing is closed. Cheryl Chandler asked is Mr. Heurer going to build. Mr. Heurer said he will oversee the process. Cheryl Chandler made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plan Application for Creek Side Estates with the 17 recommended conditions of approval. Shirley Brewer seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion passed unanimously. The next item on the agenda is a public hearing request to review a Special Use Applications for a Commercial Recreational Facility on property located east of Mamm Creek and a Yzmlle SE of the Garfield County Airport in the Eagle Springs Subdivision. This application was continued from the August th Planning Commission Meeting but has been re-noticed for tonight's hearing. The applicant is Gilbert Ramirez. Present for the Applicant are Amanda Maurer, Attorney for the Applicant and Barbara Ramirez Secretary and Treasurer for the Company. Phil Vaughan swore in all speakers for this hearing. Carolyn Dahlgren reviewed noticing required for this hearing. Amanda Maurer respondedto Ms. Dahlgren's questions. Ms. Maurer used the County Assessor records were used to obtain owner names or properties within 200' and for any mineral owner names. Ms. Dahlgren asked if certified mailing of notice was done between 91912O06 and lOtgtZW6. Ms. Maurer said mailing was donJon lOt7t2Cfi6. Gilbert Ramirez was identified as the property owner. All green certified return receipt cards were received back. Notice was published in the Glenwood Post Independent on 1018120O6 and proof of publication was received. Property was posted with the notice on 101712006. Notice was posted on property and one at the intersection of CR 315. Amanda said she checked that the notice is still in place today. Ms. Dahlgren stated that all documentation and testimony appears to be in order so it is okay to proceed. Phil Vaughan reviewed the process we would follow for this hearing. Fred Jarman is the Counfy Planner on this project and he will enter exhibits into the l record: Exhibits A -I were already accepted into the record at the August 9,2006 Planning Commission meeting. New Exhibits: Exhibit J: Proof of Mail Receipts, Publication, and Posting. Exhibit K: I-etter from Amanda Maurer to the County dated 1013012006. Exhibit L: Plan set submitted by HCE dated 1013012006. Exhibit M: Minutes from PC hearing on8l9l2ffi6. Exhibit N: Letter from Kimley-Horn & Associates dated 1013112006. Exhibit O: Letter from Wright Water Engineering dated 111112006 Some new exhibits received after mail out of staff report and have not been reviewed by staff. Phil Vaughan reviewed the Planning Commission By-Laws related to receive information at the eleventh hour. Fred Jarman stated that waste water and ability to handle and access were tow issues discussed at the August 9s meeting. Access information has not been reviewed by our Road & Bridge Department. Colin Laird said he would like to hear what applicant has to say. Thinks staff should have time to review. Phil Vaughan asked for applicants comments. Ms. Maurer would like to continue with the hearing tonight. Curtis Rowe is here tonight and can answer questions on access and road. She also stated that the water analysis letter says with water softening and R.O. would meet public water requirements. Moved back to the Commission. Cheryl Chandler asked what would be the time frame to get review done if this hearing is continued. Fred Jarman said the next meeting for the Planning Commissionis 1211312006. That meeting already has the Scott Gravel Pit and two Sketch Plans on the agenda. Colin Laird said he would probably like to know what staff thinks about this new information Colin Laird made a motion to continue this hearing to the December 13,2006 Planning Commission meeting and Cheryl Chandler seconded the motion. Phil Vaughan said he doesn't like incomplete applications and doesn't like to have continuances. Need time for Staff and Engineers to review documents. Bruce Jensen stated that information received in the last exhibit has possible health issues which he read a portion of that exhibit into the record. Bruce can't see where we need to go on with this tonight. This is a fairly substantial submittal. A vote was taken and all approved the motion to continue this hearing to the December 13,2006 Planning Commission meeting. Phil Vaughan asked the County Attorney if there is any need to waive the 120 day limit for application to go to the BOCC. Amanda Maurer said she already sent in a letter to Mark Bean on August lO,20016 concerning that. Phil Vaughan said he would like another letter for 120 day waiver. Amanda Maurer will okay the time waiving verbally and will get a letter to staff tomorrow. The next item of discussion on the agenda is a Public Meeting request to review a7nne District Amendment-PuD and a Public Hearing to review a Preliminary Plan dpplication for the Rapids on the Colorado Subdivision. The property is located one mile west of New Castle on CR 335. This application was continued from the August 9tr Planning Commission meeting but has been re-noticed for tonight's hearing. The Applicants are Gene and Mary Hilton, Rapids Development Corp. and the Rapids on the Colorado HOA. Present for the Applicant are Lee Leavenworth and Carl Hanlon, Attorney's for the Applicants, and Chds Hale of Mountain Cross Engineering, Engineer for the project. Fred Jarman is the County Planner for this project review. Phil Vaughan wanted to discuss a point of order. A letter was received from Craig Schultz to the Garfield County Attorney's Office which asked about Bob Fullerton's dealings with this project by his business office, Glenwood Brokers, and if there might be any conflict of interest there. Bob Fullerton contacted Ms. Dahlgren at the County Attorney's Office and told her that he has an office with Glenwood Brokers. Mr. Fullerton said he has no sway from Pat Fitzgerald or Glenwood Broker. No comments were made from the public or commission on the above letter. Bob Fullerton is not present for meeting at all tonight. Lee Leavenworth made mention that Jock Jacober, another Planning Commission member is a client of his. Phil Vaughan stated that Mr. Jacober is not present at the meeting at all tonight. Phil Vaughan swore in all speakers for this hearing. He also reviewed the process that we would follow for this hearing. Carglyn Dahlgren will review noticing requirements with lre Leavenworth. Different entities own different pieces of land. Property already subdivided. Assessor records were used to obtain adjoining property owner names. Mineral Estate is owned by Mr. Hilton except for south of CR 335, Federal Land bank owns those mineral rights. Written notice of hearing was sent to all owners. Certified mail receipts are dated 1016106 and all green cards were received back from mailing. Notice was published in the Glenwood Post Independent on 10/8/06. Mr. Hilton did the posting on the property on 10/6/06 and he verified that sign was still posted this afternoon. Sign is visible from CR 335. Ms. Dahlgren reviewed documentation. Testirnony and documentation are consistent so it is okay to proceed. Phil Vaughan said there are two issues before us tonight. Fred Jarman will enter all exhibits and have them accepted into the record. Fred Jarman said that two motions will be required tonight, one for each item. Carolyn Dahlgren stated that noticing is only required for the preliminary plan public hearing. The PUD is a public meeting and does not require noticing. Fred Jarman entered exhibits into the record. Exhibits A-X were all seen and accepted at the August 9,2006 Planning Commission meeting. New exhibits to be entered into the record tonilht are: Exhibit Y: Review letter from Resource Engineering dated lllllo6 Exhibit Z: Review memo from the County Road & Bridge Department dated 10113106 Exhibit AA: Minutes from the 819106 Planning Commission Meeting Exhibit BB: Memo from the County Vegetation Manager dated 10131106 Exhibit CC: Review Letter from CGS dated 10120106 Exhibit DD: Lrtter from lravenworth & Karp dated 1019106 Exhibit EE: ktter from Burning Mountain Fire District dated lll7106 Exhibit FF: Email from CDOT dated 1118106 Exhibit GG: Irtter from the Division of Water Resources from Cynthia Love dated tU6to6. (Exhibits EE - GG were handed out tonight) Exhibits Y - GG are accepted into the record. A lot of this information was covered at the August 9ft Planning Commission meeting. Will review information carried over rezoning property from A/RIRD & A/I to PUD. Fred Jarman showed zoning of property and surrounding properties. 33 lots approved already on this property. Infrastructure is in place. On August 9n,122 single-family lots were proposed. New density proposed tonight is 104lots. A revised site plan was shown. New items proposed are a ball field, basketball court, pedestrian trails, and open space on about two thirds of the property. Main issues rose at the August 9ft meeting: o Question on conforrnance with the Town of New Castle's Comprehensive Plan. r Projecttoo dense.o Wastewater treatment facility too close to neighbors (has not changed from original site plan). o Traffic impact on to CR 335 and I-70. Had conversation with CDOT and they said there will be less than a2OVo increase or change so no access permit is required. e Internal road widths in PUD (60' versus 50'). Internal road design is 50' instead of 60' which is required. BOCC can vary this requirement in a PUD. Applicant is asking to reduce to 50' except for the road leading out of the subdivision that would be 60'. This is a concern of staff and emergency services. Engineer recofirmends some improvements be made and impact fee will be collected. No comments were received from Road & Bridge to upgrade road because of this development.o Inadequate water supply. Exhibit GG, letter from the Division of Water Resources dated tll6l06 states "that proposed water supply is physically adequate; however material injury will occur to decreed water rights unless the applicant amends the current plan for augmentation and obtains and maintains valid well permits for the proposed wells pursuant to a court-approved amended plan for augmentation". o Inadequate fire protection. No specific plan submitted. Fred Jarman did speak to Brit Mclin, Fire Chief of the Burning Mountain Fire District. o Two acre minimum lot size in the A/R/RD and A./I zone districts. o Asking for a32'building height. 25' is requirement in similar zone district. o Maximum lot coverage in A/R/RD and A/I is l1%o and applicant is asking for 50Vo. Staff suggests 357o. Concern of staff is for emergency vehicles to be able to turn around. No on street parking allowed. Internal road network is okay per Brit Mclin, Fire Chief of Burning Mountain Fire District. Section 4.07.03(5)requires a variety of housing types. Initial request was for multi- family with one generic lot size and density. Affordable housing is not required in Study Area2. Section 4.07.03(8) waste water facility. This will be a challenge because of material injury letter from State. Section 4.W.04 maximum height of buitding; there are six points listed that the applicant must so justification to increase the building height. Section 4.07.05 related to different building types and maximum lot coverage. No justification has been made to support the differences. Section 4.08.05 centralized waste water facility not included in original documents. State approval of facility is required. Section 4.08.05(7) development schedule; applicant proposes to complete project within 30 months. Fred Jarman made note of the time frames required for items to be done. o Burning Mountain has reviewed site plan. (Exhibit EE) o Public trails: to whom will these be dedicated? . Application did not contain information regarding noxious weeds. Staff sent application to Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation'Manager to review. Staff feels there are a number of points that the Planning Commission needs to address before moving on to the preliminary plan application review. Carolyn Dahlgren made a procedural point and that is some members were not present for the August 9ft meeting. New application and new notice whs done so people here tonight are decision makers on the basis of tonight's hearing. Commission needs to keep issues separate. This is discussion for the rezoning portion of application now. Questions for staff were taken next. Cheryl Chandler asked can we make a request to put a deed restriction on 5 or 6 units. Fred Jarman said yes you can. Fred said there is a question of multi-family and whether density would stay the same. Applicant is not required to have affordable housing. Next we moved to the applicant for their presentation. Lee Leavenworth and Carl Hanlon, Attorney's for applicant, Curtis Rowe, Chris Hale, Engineer and the Hilton's are all present tonight. A power point presentation was made. Some of the subdivision issues are cornmon to PUD issues. A vicinity map of the property and surrounding area was shown which included what is there and approved already. Fire protection proposed is 150,000 gallon of storage and 10 acre feet storage pond. Applicant is in agreement with the Burning Mountain Fire District suggestions. Cunently there are 3 internal roads. Previously approved subdivision is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 667o of the PUD will be open space. Density proposed will be .86 square foot per acre and lots will be clustered. There was a strong objection to attach single family units at last hearing. Average lot is about 12,000 square feet with different sizes and configuration of lots. They are proposing FAR on some of these lots as a condition of approval to the BOCC. An existing zoning map was shown. There are no soil hazards on the property. Drainage issues are addressed and they will implement HP Geotech's suggestions. Applicant stated that Chris Hale had verified that there will be no problems if suggestions by engineer are implemented. Property is located within two mile sphere of the Town of New Castle Comprehensive Plan. MOU agreement stated applicant is in compliance with the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Town supports the clustering concept. PUD is in compliance with the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Project this close to town needs varying sized lots. PUD provides for public access to trails with over 2800 feet of river frontage. There will be almost 80 acres of open space Location of sewer plant has been approved by Garfield County. Package plant for sewer would eliminate the 33 individual septic systems. Have met goals and objectives of Comprehensive Plan. The proposed PUD is in the best interest of the public. Provides public parking, fishing and river trail. Tried to respond to staff and comments from the August 9n meeting. Internal road right of way 50' versus 60'. First cul-de-sac back to county road would make 60' with the others at 50'. Asking for a variance. Added recreational improvements. Three available bus pullouts. Two places for mailboxes are proposed. Increased number of parking spaces. Had proposed attached units. Curtis Rowe, with Kimley-Horn will review traffic study. He has worked with County staff and CDOT. Analysis done on intersection of CR 335 & I-70. trss than20%o increase of traffic to intersection. Lee Leavenworth stated that the Colorado Geological Survey has basically signed off on this application and applicant has no problem with their suggestions. Each lot owner will be responsible for weeds which will be noted in the covenants. The state has signed off on physical water supply but the state objected to the augmentation plan issued in 1978. Have applied for additional water from West Divide. Applicant is asking you to move this application forward and that the applicants receive a letter from the State related to no material injury before the BOCC meeting. William Laura, principal of Wright Water Engineers spoke about water system. Ditch is in place and there are two potable wells on the property. West Divide will provide contract water and tie it to the wells. ke Leavenworth said that staff is suggesting they get a flood plain administrative permit. County has fee structure in place for traffic and they will ask the BOCC that those fees be used on CR 335. ,A,pplicant thinks they are incompliance with the Town of New Castle's Comprehensive Plan. Lee Leayenworth restated they are proposing maximum lot coverage of 50Vo and will make an FAR proposal at the BOCC hearing. Sizes of lots make that necessary. Height limit they are asking for is important to promote diversity of housing. Property sits below county road and the highway. Given the amount of open space, don't think there will be any impact on adjacent properties. Asking for additional 7' on building height. Asking for a variance to the road width. Understand they have a year to final PUD and have a year for SIA requirements. They are okay with the staff s conditions of approval. Need to add statement applicant proposes FAR. Need material letter stating there will be no material injury before going to the BOCC hearing. Need clarification on condition #8 concerning site approval? Will include all conditions on the final plat and in the covenants. Applicant asks that you look favorably upon this application and consider this new PUD application for approval. No further cofirments by the applicant or their representatives so we moved back to the Commission for comments on the rezoning portion of the application from A/R/RD & A./I to PUD. Colin Laird has a question for applicant concerning internal trail system. l-ee Iravenworth pointed out on the site plan where the trails are located. Colin also asked if they had talked to the RE-2 School District about bus pick up area for school kids. lre Leavenworth said they had identified three places where they could be located and they will talk to the school district before the BOCC hearing. 11 Colin Laird also wondered if you could have a trail along the county road. Carolyn Dahlgren explained that the trail on CR 109 is in the right of way of the road. In a situation with private land with a public trail, in that instance we do not gave governmental immunity. Commission would have to have insurance to accept. Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision maintains their trails. Fred Jarman stated that the fisherman's easement is in their conservation easement. Colin Laird asked what protocol is for affordable housing. Other than FAR could we negotiate other means. Fred Jarman said no other means could be used but that there are a number of free market tools to keep product perhaps product more reasonable. Colin Laird stated at previous meeting they had talked about clustering. Colin sees this development as very broken up. Ire Iravenworth said part of the constraints is the open space and he can't fault quantity of open space. Colin Laird said he would hate to call this clustering. Bruce Jensen said he is following Colin's thinking. If infrastructure was not in place, what would subdivision look like. Ire Leavenworth responded probably not. Shirley Brewer asked about multi-family being taken out from original application. Fred Jarman responded that l2l single-family units were proposed on original plan as stated in the application. He referred to Town of New Castle Comprehensive Plan. The plan proposed here is in the sphere of influence for the Town based on their comprehensive plan. Moved out to the public for comments next and the Commission will take questions and comments related to PUD rezoning only at this time. Kenneth Collins would like to speak first and his property is on the east side of this property. He will not be able to see to the west with this development. Wildlife will not be able to pass through. This is not a cluster plan. The sewer plant will be on one side of his property and houses on the other side. Open space cannot be built on because it has slopes of over 407o. Want larger lots and fewer houses proposed. This type of development should not be allowed in this area. John Olson would like to speak next and he resides at 1444[,ower River Road in Snowmass, CO. He owns property down river from this parcel with Mr. Jolley. Mr. Olson stated it is hard to address issues in 3 minutes. Zoning doesn't fit in with the character of the neighborhood. No effort has been made by the applicant or their representatives to talk to neighbors. The DOW is not in favor of this development. In regards to zoning this gets developer one step closer to what everyone down there is against. Kent Jolley would like to speak next and he lives atS32Canyon Creek Drive. Kent owns property to the west with John Olson. Kent and his brother also own property to the south. They will be hugely impacted by this development and haven't been talked to at all by this developer. These are self imposed constraints. Open space is almost entirely t2 unusable. This is inappropriate density being requested for this area. If this project is approved, this will set precedence for others to do the same thing. His water production is enough water to support one household. Need guarantee that the Hilton's well won't drain aquifer. Mr. Jolley is not aware of approval for site application for sewer. Several things have happened behind his back. Mr. Jolley also stated that three minutes enough time to discuss all issues. Brett.Iolley would like to speak next and he lives at 1288 CR 245. Brett owns the ranch to the south and west of this parcel with his brother Kent. Brett said he sprays weeds constantly on his property and he wants to know who is going to pay and take care of the open space in this project. What are you going to do about trespassers and dogs? No urccess for wildlife to the river. Karen Nadon would like to speak next. Ms. Nadon lives at 2675 CR 335. She would like to add her comments to the other comments made. This project is too dense for this area. Development that was brought up for clustering should be followed. Cluster housing should reduce impacts. Open space is considered as a slope hazard. As homeowners that have lived here we have a vested interest in this area. Ms. Nadon has been in this area for 30 years and their only recourse is to turn to the Commission. Asking you to revoke their request and turn this request down. Russell Talbott lives at 6851 CR 214 andhe will speak next. Mr. Talbott is the Vice President and owner of Apple Tree Mobile Home Park. For him to speak against this would be duplicitous. No technical deficiency in submittal. He has a couple of concerns related to traffic impact at Apple Tree Park. Application does not address impact from the Rapids Subdivision to Highway Interchange in traffic report. Mr. Talbott thinks there will be an impact at Apple Tree and he also thinks that intersections should be addressed. The next speaker is Rick Rakich and he lives at 54 Rippy Lane. Mr. Rakich owns property to south and he sees wildlife in this area on a daily basis. This is way too many homes for this development. If approved this will open the door for more of this to happen. Craig Schultz lives at 2859 CR 335 and he has a procedural question. Owners on County Road 335 are asking for letter from the neighbors be accepted into the record. Letter was accepted as Exhibit HH into the record. Mr. Schultz stated we are citizens who try to educate themselves in order to comment. Open space increased to 66Vo. One acre per lot is maximum density and not a developer's right. Question related to intent of zoning in the Master Plan and will this fit that plan. The Town of New Castle will not annex Apple Tree Mobile Home Park and that property is even closer to the Town. Comprehensive Plan is a guideline and not a legal right. There still is a glaring question concerning water. Water has still not been addressed and that was brought up previously at the August 9ft Planning Commission meeting. Statements have been made by the applicant that they think they can get the water. Two different staff members have recommended denial. Mr. Schultz thinks that everyone he has spoken to on CR 335 is against this. This is not a cluster development. Robert Gordon would like to speak next and he lives on 7th Street in New Castle. Mr. Gordon is in agreement with this development. He agrees with a lot of what has been said tonight. He recalled when Peach Valley was all orchards. Growth is coming and it is our job to create good growth. Should have houses located in one place instead of all over. There are two other subdivisions already in process on CR 335. Our responsibility to do the best we can to create a good quality of life for people in the area. A question was asked by the Chairman if the Commission wanted to allow more than three minutes time to speak. Sean Martin made a motion to not extend the allowable speaking time and Shirley Brewer seconded the motion. Phil Vaughan said no motion is needed if we are not changing the rules. We came back to the Commission. No further questions or cofilments were made from the public at this time so that portion of hearing is closed. lre Leavenworth said they have tried to address items in the application and they will try to screen the sewer plarrt. Will address weeds in covenants. Asking for rezoning of this property. They followed the County Comprehensive Plan which told them to go to the Town and look at their Comprehensive Plan. Town agreed 121 units are within guidelines of their Comprehensive Plan. Asking Commission to approve PUD as proposed with the staff s conditions and with his three conditions. Which are solve water issue before BOCC meeting; FAR on lots; change condition #8 in staff report that site approval has to be obtained from CDPHE? Colin Laird asked about number of acres that Blue Creek Ranch had for their development. Fred Jarman responded 89 acres with 48 units. Bruce Jensen said there is a continual reference back to the Town of New Castle, but we are not required to adhere to a statement made by the Town. Doesn't mean the Town is approving and we have to follow. Fred Jarman said the Town is not approving. The County has chosen to look to the Town as to what they see for growth of the Town. There is a three mile sphere of influenbe in every town. Carolyn Dahlgren said probably the issue here is you might disagree with the MOU. Bruce said it is more of an authority question. IGA with Town. Fred Jarman said this is the first time that the MOU has been tied to a development. Town hasn't heard public comments on this project. MOU is kind of meaningless. Cheryl Chandler said that the Town of New Castle did receive a copy of this application and should have had a meeting with the Public Trustee about this. Phil Vaughan mentioned that it is l0:15'P.M. and he asked everyone if they were okay to continue moving forward. Cheryl Chandler said she would,like to hear at least the entire rezoning request. Colin Laird said Bruce Jensen brought up a good point. He is intrigued with higher density. Density is too much the way it is currently laid out. This is a pretty large up zoning that is being proposed. This would be giving a lot to this one parcel without consideration of neighbors. Colin said he cannot support this. Bruce Jensen said the traffic will have a cumulative effect. Pretty soon the traffic will be backed up all over the place. Cheryl Chandler said she sees a lot of little pieces of ground. Not a perfect layout but it's a whole lot better than we've seen before. Colin Laird said that is all the more reason to see this done right. How do we really make sure this works for the area? Possibly vary lot sizes and really create a cluster development. Shirley Brewer said there are so many issues involved in this PUD. Need a lot more thought put into this one. Colin Laird made a motion to deny the PUD request based on the staff findings listed in the staff report. Bruce Jensen seconded the motion. Colin Laird restated his motion to deny based on findings listed in staff report, issues around density, height and water. Phil Vaughan stated that the plan in front of him, looking at the rezoning plan, he supports itre plan and he will-vote against the motion. Our goal is to do the job the best that you can. This plan achieves the density and it makes good sense for growth area. Cheryl Chandler said some of the comments made are for the subdivision review and not the rezoning portion. Colin Lafud said we are working with 104 single family units for rezoning. Apple Tree Mobile Home Park fulfills a need for this area. A vote was taken on motion that Colin Laird had made and it failed with a 3(N) to 3(Y) vote. Shirley Brewer would like to see some answers to staff s recoflrmendations. Phil Vaughan said application has been sent out to review agencies. We are not in a position to have a negotiation. We can't design the project for the applicant. Bruce Jensen stated that based on the information he is looking at that he will not change his mind. Cheryl Chandler made a motion to approve the PUD request with the 13 items listed in the staff report. She is not sure about condition #8. Phil Vaughan said that is a Site Application with CDPIIE. Cheryl also stated that the applicant should explore the possibility of lOVo deed restriction on lots. Phil said rezoning should not have conditions 15 of approval. Fred Jarman said you can have conditions. Cheryl said another issue is the building height and she recorlmends that be25' maximum. Sean Manin seconded Cheryl's motion. Phil Vaughan said he is not going to support that motion. A vote was taken and motion to approve failed. The next motion made by Cheryl Chandler was to continue this item (PUD request) to the January 20[7 Planning Commission meeting. Shirley Brewer seconded that motion. Applicant will waive the 120 day requirement to get this to the BOCC and any other deadline. Applicant will follow up with a written response. All members voted and approved the motion to continue this item to the January lO,2OO7 Planning Commission meeting for rezoning. The same 6 members here tonight have to be at the January meeting or at least enough for a quorum. Shirley Brewer made a motion to continue the Preliminary Plan Application to the January 10,2W7 Planning Commission meeting. Cheryl Chandler seconded that motion. A vote was taken and motion passed. Under other business we need to have election of officers. A nomination was made for Phil Vaughan as Chairman. Shirley Brewer approved that nomination and Cheryl Chandler seconded. Phil Vaughan said he would accept with a caveat. He has been Chairman for 10 years and if there arc any other folks interested it is okay to state that. Cheryl made a motion to accept Phil Vaughan as Chairman and Shirley Brewer seconded. All agreed with motion. Cheryl Chandler was nominated as Vice Chair by Shirley Brewer and Sean Martin seconded that motion. Al1 agreed with motion. A nomination was made for Shirley Brewer for Secretary by Cheryl Chandler and Bruce Jensen seconded the motion. All agreed with motion. No other business so meeting is adjourned.