HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report Continued from 05.20.19 BOCC HearingBoard of County Commissioners – Exhibits
Battlement Mesa PUD Agricultural Uses Text Amendment to
Zone District Regulations
Applicant is Battlement Mesa Land Investments Parcel 1 LLC
Representative is Eric Schmela
June 17, 2019
Continued from May 20, 2019 BOCC Hearing
(File No. PUAA-03-19-8717)
Exhibit # Exhibit Description
1 Public Notice Information Form & Proof of Notice
2 Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended
3 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030
4 Application
5 1st & 2nd Supplemental Memos to BOCC & Original Staff Report
submitted to Planning Commission
6 Referral Comments – Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Received April 24,
2019
7 Referral Comments – Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District, Received
April 26, 2019
8 Referral Comments – Garfield County Vegetation Management,
Received April 29, 2019
9 Referral Comments – Garfield County Environmental Health Received
May 1, 2019
10 Public Comment – Rhonda Coleman, Received April 22, 2019
11 Public Comment – Rhonda Coleman (email attachment), Received
April 22, 2019
12 Public Comment – Carol Abbot, Received April 23, 2019
13 Public Comment – Kay Mary, Received April 23, 2019
14 Public Comment – Jerry and Mary Lee Mohrlang, Received April 23,
2019
15 Public Comment – Carol Abbot (second comment), Received April 24,
2019
16 Public Comment – Gary Evenson Received April 24, 2019
17 Public Comment – Gary Evenson (email attachment), Received April
24, 2019
18 Public Comment – Gary Evenson (second comment), Received April
24, 2019
19 Public Comment – Karen Klink, Received May 1, 2019
20 Public Comment – Jedidiah Johnston, Received May 1, 2019
21 Public Comment – Gregg & Susan Slone, Received May 2, 2019
22 Public Comment – Robert Bjerstedt, Received May 2, 2019
23 Map submitted by Applicant showing potential areas of exemption
from agricultural operations
24 Public Comment – Robert Bjerstedt (amended), Received May 2, 2019
25 Public Comment – Jacqueline Taylor, Received May 3, 2019
26 Public Comment – Stephen Hopple, Received May 3, 2019
27 Public Comment – Beverly Reed, Received May 6, 2019
28 Public Comment – Nancy Stover, Received May 6, 2019
29 Additional maps submitted by Applicant showing potential areas of
exemption and areas for agriculture, Received May 8, 2019
30 Documents submitted by Applicant discussing Common Open Space
issue, Received May 8, 2019
31 Public Comment – Bob Arrington, Received May 8, 2019
32 Public Comment – Kelly & Josh Stover, Received May 10, 2019
33 Email from Applicant, Received May 10, 2019
34 Final Modified Map & Accompanying Email from Applicant, Received
May 13, 2019
35 Public Comment – Keith Lammey, Received May 14, 2019
36
37
38
39
40
42
Public Comment – Robert Bjerstedt, Received May 14, 2019
Public Comment – Keith Lammey, Received May 24, 2019
Public Comment – Nathan Humphrey, Received May 31, 2019
Applicant Presentation
42
43
Public Comment – Frank Shove, Received June 3, 2019
Public Comment – Leta Terrell, Received June 6, 2019
Public Comment – Penny Roehm, Received June 6, 2019
44 Referral Response - Battlement Mesa Concerned Citizens,
Received June 10, 2019
45
46
47
48
49
41 Referral Response - Battlement Mesa Service Association, Received
June 5, 2019
108 Eighth Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(970)945-8212
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Claire Dalby, Planner
DATE: 6/17/2019
SUBJECT: Second Supplemental Staff Memo: Battlement Mesa PUD Text Amendment:
Agricultural Uses
APPLICATION TIMELINE
The following is an overview of the timeline of the Battlement Mesa PUD Text Amendment
application to allow agricultural uses within the Battlement Mesa PUD:
•March 1, 2019: The original application is submitted by the applicant for review by
Community Development Staff (see Figure 1 below).
Community Development Department
Exhibit 5
108 Eighth Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(970)945-8212
Figure 1: Original map submitted by applicant allowing agriculture in all zone districts (except MHR) not
yet annexed into the Battlement Mesa Service Association
•March 21, 2019: The application is deemed “Technically Complete” by Community
Development Staff and made available online for public viewing.
•March 27, 2019: Public notice is mailed to Battlement Mesa PUD residents and posted
throughout the PUD. Directions on how to view the application online are included
within the public notice information.
•April 4, 2019: Public notice is published in the Rifle Citizen Telegram. Directions on how
to view the application online are included within the public notice information.
•April 22, 2019: A public meeting organized by the applicant is held in Battlement Mesa.
•May 3, 2019: The original application and staff packet (staff report, referral and public
comments) is made available online for public viewing prior to the Planning Commission
hearing.
•May 8, 2019: The application is heard by the Planning Commission. Staff recommends
denial of the application as submitted but also provides an option (“Option B”) that
108 Eighth Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(970)945-8212
would allow limited agriculture with restrictions in certain zone districts/areas of the
PUD if the Planning Commission went against Staff recommendation and opted for
approval. The Applicant also submits a new map that had been submitted to Staff the
same day (see Figure 2 below) for public viewing which alters the original application.
The applicant’s new submitted map is more restrictive than the original proposal in
terms of where agriculture would be allowed within the PUD. After consulting County
legal staff over potential issues with the new submittals significantly altering the original
application, the Planning Commission decides to proceed with the hearing due to the
fact that the new submittals are more restrictive than the original proposal. After review
and testimony, the Planning Commission votes 7-0 to deny the application (including
options provided by Staff and applicant).
Figure 2: First revised map submitted by applicant showing areas of the PUD (shaded and striped green)
where agriculture would be allowed)
•May 13, 2019: The applicant submits a new map to Staff that further limits areas that
would allow agriculture in response to the Planning Commission’s decision and Staff’s
concerns (see Figure 3 below).
108 Eighth Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(970) 945-8212
Figure 3: Second revised map submitted by applicant showing areas of the PUD (shaded and striped green)
where agriculture would be allowed)
• May 15, 2019: The original application and second staff packet (supplemental memo,
new applicant map, original staff report, referral and public comments) is made
available online for public viewing prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing.
• May 20, 2019: The application is heard by the Board of County Commissioners. The
Board makes the decision to continue the application to Monday, June 17, 2019 in order
for the public to have more time to view the changes made to the application by the
applicant since its original submittal and to take advantage of the proximity of the
scheduled Parachute meeting venue to affected Battlement Mesa residents.
Since the BOCC hearing on May 20, 2019 was continued, no new changes to the application or
Staff/Planning Commission recommendation have occurred.
BOARD OPTIONS
Recommendation: Denial
The Planning Commission recommended to the Board of County Commissioners that the
application be denied, including options presented by Staff and the applicant at the public
108 Eighth Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(970)945-8212
hearing. This is consistent with Staff’s recommendation for denial.
Suggested Findings:
1.That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of
County Commissioners.
2.That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete,
that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties
were heard at the meeting.
3.That for the above stated and other reasons, the PUD Amendment Application to Amend
the Battlement Mesa PUD Guide – District Regulations is not in the best interest of the
health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield
County.
4.Based on the impacts of the proposed PUD Text Amendment including but not limited to
the potential for air quality impacts, noise impacts, odor impacts, and related nuisance
impacts, the Application has not met the requirements of the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution of 1978 in accordance with the Battlement Mesa PUD approval Resolution No.
82-121 and the provisions set forth therein, including but not limited to the Sections
described below:
a.That the Application is not in compliance with Section 4.02: Purposes and Objectives
of Development including but not limited to Subsections (8) conservation of the value
of the land; and (9) encouraging preservation of the site’s natural characteristics.
b.That the Application is not in compliance with Section 4.04 as the proposed PUD Text
Amendment does not reflect general conformance with the County’s Comprehensive
Plan including conflicts with the Residential High Density Designation for the site.
c.That the Application is not in compliance with Section 4.06 as the proposed PUD Text
Amendment includes land use that would prove incompatible with existing residential
land use.
d.That the Application is not in compliance with Section 4.07.03, Subsections (1) related
to unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area being minimized and (4)
provision of adequate Common Open Space and the optimum preservation of the
natural features of the terrain.
e.That the Application has not adequately demonstrated compliance with Section
4.07.09 related to provision of Common Open Space.
108 Eighth Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(970)945-8212
f.That the Application is not in compliance with 4.12.03 (2) as the Proposed Text
Amendment will affect in a substantially adverse manner the public interest based on
nuisance impacts including but not limited to air quality, noise, and odor on
residential, commercial, business center, and public, semi-public, and recreational
uses within the PUD.
5.That the Application is not in general conformance with the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan.
Applicant’s Proposed Revision
The most current applicant revision of the original application for Board consideration remains
unchanged from the May 20th public hearing (see Figure 3 in timeline above). Staff concerns
over agriculture in higher density zone districts, proximity of agriculture to development within
the PUD and nuisance associated with hemp cultivation still exist with the proposed revision;
because of this Staff still recommends denial of the application. If the Board chooses to approve
the applicant’s current revision of the application, Staff would recommend modifications that
attempt to lessen the impacts associated with the proposal (see Staff map below). These
modifications remove agriculture from higher density zone districts, only allow agriculture
within the fringe of the PUD significantly removed from development and prohibit hemp (while
allowing all other agricultural types) in one particular low density residential zone district that
has historically been used for agriculture. If the Board decides to approve the modified
application, the Suggested Findings as listed below and an updated set of Conditions of
Approval are provided.
108 Eighth Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(970) 945-8212
STAFF MAP: Staff’s Modified Version of Applicant Map
Suggested Findings
1.That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of
County Commissioners.
2.That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete,
that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties
were heard at the meeting.
3.That for the above stated and other reasons, request to Amend the Battlement Mesa PUD
Guide – District Regulations is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience,
order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
4.That the application is in general conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as
amended.
5.That with the adoption of conditions and for the above stated and other reasons the
application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use
Resolution of 1978.
108 Eighth Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(970) 945-8212
Suggested Conditions of Approval
1.Prior to final approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall
demonstrate that the proposed text amendment shall maintain compliance with all other
PUD standards for the Battlement Mesa PUD including Common Open Space
Requirements.
2.All representations of the Applicant as contained in the Application submittals shall be
conditions of approval unless specifically modified by the conditions contained herein.
3.“Packaging, processing, and distribution of agricultural commodities” shall be removed
from the submitted definition of agriculture and replaced with “transportation of
agricultural commodities”.
4.The Applicant shall amend the submitted agricultural overlay map to reflect any changes
made during the BOCC hearing; this map shall then be incorporated into the Battlement
Mesa PUD Guide – District Regulations.
5.Agriculture shall only be allowed within the Rural Density Residential (RDR), Low Density
Residential (LDR) and Public, Semipublic and Recreation (PSR) zone districts not annexed
into the BMSA as a Use by Right and only within the specific areas as dictated by the
agricultural overlay map (see attached mapping).
6.Agriculture for the cultivation of hemp or similar crops with industry recognized odor
impacts shall not be allowed within the LDR zone districts shown on the map south of
County Road 302 and west of County Road 308 (see attached mapping).
7.All agricultural uses, as amended by these conditions, will have a 300-foot setback from
parcels annexed into the Battlement Mesa Service Association.
8.The Applicant shall provide documentation of a process acceptable to the County of
providing notification of BMSA parcel annexation and the subsequent revocation of
agricultural uses on said parcels and any setback adjustments.
9.The Applicant shall work with Garfield County Vegetation Management to address issues
from Steve Anthony’s April 29, 2019 referral comments (Exhibit 8). A demonstration of
compliance with this condition shall be provided by Garfield County Vegetation
Management.
108 Eighth Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(970) 945-8212
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Claire Dalby, Planner
DATE: 5/20/2018
SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Memo: Battlement Mesa PUD Text Amendment: Agricultural
Uses
PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS
The Planning Commission heard the Battlement Mesa PUD Text Amendment application to add
agricultural uses to the PUD Zone District Regulations on Wednesday, May 8, 2019. The
Planning Commission made a recommendation of denial of the application to the Board of
County Commissioners with a vote of 7-0 consistent with Staff’s recommendation. Staff
provided the Planning Commission with an option (“Option B”) to allow limited agriculture with
restrictions in certain zone districts/areas of the PUD. The applicant also presented a more
restrictive version of the application at this meeting; the Planning Commission did not choose
either option. Suggested findings for denial of the application as recommended by the
Planning Commission are included within this memo and in Section VII of the attached staff
report.
NEW APPLICATION SUBMITTALS & STAFF ANALYSIS
Since the Planning Commission’s decision, the Applicant has met with Staff and submitted
revised materials to further refine areas that would allow and disallow agriculture in response
to the Planning Commission’s decision and Staff’s concerns. Staff received this revised material
on 5/13/2019. While the locations presented within this new mapping are more restrictive than
Community Development Department
Exhibit 5
108 Eighth Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(970) 945-8212
what was presented in the original application, Staff still has concerns over zone district
designations where agriculture is proposed, siting of agriculture in relation to prevailing winds,
and general proximity to developed residential parcels. An in-depth analysis of these concerns
is found in the original staff report submitted to the Planning Commission.
BOARD OPTIONS
Recommendation: Denial
The Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners that the
application as submitted be denied. This is consistent with Staff’s recommendation for denial.
Suggested Findings:
1.That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning
Commission.
2.That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all
pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were
heard at the meeting.
3.That for the above stated and other reasons, the PUD Amendment Application to Amend
the Battlement Mesa PUD Guide – District Regulations is not in the best interest of the
health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield
County.
4.Based on the impacts of the proposed PUD Text Amendment including but not limited to
the potential for air quality impacts, noise impacts, odor impacts, and related nuisance
impacts, the Application has not met the requirements of the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution of 1978 in accordance with the Battlement Mesa PUD approval Resolution No.
82-121 and the provisions set forth therein, including but not limited to the Sections
described below:
a.That the Application is not in compliance with Section 4.02: Purposes and Objectives
of Development including but not limited to Subsections (8) conservation of the value
of the land; and (9) encouraging preservation of the site’s natural characteristics.
b.That the Application is not in compliance with Section 4.04 as the proposed PUD Text
Amendment does not reflect general conformance with the County’s Comprehensive
Plan including conflicts with the Residential High Density Designation for the site.
108 Eighth Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(970)945-8212
c.That the Application is not in compliance with Section 4.06 as the proposed PUD Text
Amendment includes land use that would prove incompatible with existing residential
land use.
d.That the Application is not in compliance with Section 4.07.03, Subsections (1) related
to unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area being minimized and (4)
provision of adequate Common Open Space and the optimum preservation of the
natural features of the terrain.
e.That the Application has not adequately demonstrated compliance with Section
4.07.09 related to provision of Common Open Space.
f.That the Application is not in compliance with 4.12.03 (2) as the Proposed Text
Amendment will affect in a substantially adverse manner the public interest based on
nuisance impacts including but not limited to air quality, noise, and odor on
residential, commercial, business center, and public, semi-public, and recreational
uses within the PUD.
5.That the Application is not in general conformance with the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan.
Approval Option
If the Board decides to approve the modified version of the application as presented in Exhibit
34 by the Applicant, the Suggested Findings as listed below and a modified version of the
Conditions of Approval as listed in Section VII, Option B, of the original Staff Report may be
adopted. If the Board chooses this option, Staff has several concerns, as previously stated, with
certain locations within the PUD proposed for agriculture and would recommend instituting
restrictions within these areas. The conditions of approval below reference the new map
submitted by the Applicant with Staff’s recommended changes.
Suggested Findings
1.That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning
Commission.
2.That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all
pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were
heard at the meeting.
3.That for the above stated and other reasons, request to Amend the Battlement Mesa PUD
Guide – District Regulations is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience,
order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
108 Eighth Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(970) 945-8212
4.That the application is in general conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as
amended.
5.That with the adoption of conditions and for the above stated and other reasons the
application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use Resolution of
1978.
Suggested Conditions of Approval
1.Prior to final approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall
demonstrate that the proposed text amendment shall maintain compliance with all other
PUD standards for the Battlement Mesa PUD including Common Open Space
Requirements.
2.All representations of the Applicant as contained in the Application submittals shall be
conditions of approval unless specifically modified by the conditions contained herein.
3.“Packaging, processing, and distribution of agricultural commodities” shall be removed
from the submitted definition of agriculture and replaced with “transportation of
agricultural commodities”.
4.The Applicant shall amend the submitted agricultural overlay map to reflect any changes
made during the BOCC hearing; this map shall then be incorporated into the Battlement
Mesa PUD Guide – District Regulations.
5.Agriculture shall only be allowed within the Rural Density Residential (RDR), Low Density
Residential (LDR) and Public, Semipublic and Recreation (PSR) zone districts not annexed
into the BMSA as a Use by Right and only within the specific areas as dictated by the
agricultural overlay map (see attached mapping).
6.Agriculture for the cultivation of hemp or similar crops with industry recognized odor
impacts shall not be allowed within the LDR zone districts shown on the map south of
County Road 302 and west of County Road 308 (see attached mapping).
7.All agricultural uses, as amended by these conditions, will have a 300-foot setback from
parcels annexed into the Battlement Mesa Service Association.
8.The Applicant shall provide documentation of a process acceptable to the County of
providing notification of BMSA parcel annexation and the subsequent revocation of
agricultural uses on parcels and any setback adjustments.
108 Eighth Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(970) 945-8212
9.The Applicant shall work with Garfield County Vegetation Management to address issues
from Steve Anthony’s April 29, 2019 referral comments (Exhibit 8). A demonstration of
compliance with this condition shall be provided by Garfield County Vegetation
Management.
Planning Commission 5/8/2019
PUAA-03-19-8717
CD
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
TYPE OF REVIEW PUD Text Amendment – Battlement Mesa PUD
APPLICANT (OWNER) Battlement Mesa Land Investments Parcel 1 LLC
REPRESENTATIVE Eric Schmela, Battlement Mesa Company
LOCATION Battlement Mesa PUD – South of the Colorado River,
Southeast of and adjacent to the Town of Parachute
LEGAL DESCRIPTION The Battlement Mesa PUD is that property described in
Resolution No. 82-121 recorded in Reception No. 333476
including the PUD Zone District Map.
REQUEST Amend the PUD Zone District text to allow agricultural uses
as defined in the application as a permitted Use by Right in
all zone districts, less MHR zone district, for all parcels inside
the PUD boundary but not yet annexed into the Battlement
Mesa Service Association (BMSA).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION Denial
I.DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
The Applicant is proposing a Text Amendment to the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit
Development Zone District Regulations to allow agricultural uses as a permitted Use by Right in
all zone districts excluding the Mobile Home Residential (MHR) zone district. The amendment
would only apply to parcels within the PUD boundary that have not yet been annexed into the
Battlement Mesa Service Association (BMSA). Once said parcels are annexed by BMSA, the
agricultural uses would no longer be permitted. As represented by the Applicant, the PUD
amendment would be utilized for the potential cultivation of hemp, potatoes, alfalfa and hops
within the PUD boundaries, among other possible types of agriculture.
The Battlement Mesa PUD was approved by Garfield County by Resolution No. 82-121 and
included a broad range of zone districts including residential zones with varying densities, a
mobile home residential zone, several commercial, office and business zones, along with a Public,
Semi-Public and Recreation (PSR) zone district. Because agricultural uses are not included within
the PUD regulations and guide, this amendment is necessary to allow them. The Applicant
proposes to add a new paragraph to each zone district within the Battlement Mesa PUD Guide,
with the exclusion of the MHR zone district, describing the new agricultural uses and definition.
The definition of agriculture within the Application is a modified version of the County definition
as stated in the 2013 Land Use Code, removing certain more impactful uses under the original
definition (Figures 2 and 3).
Exhibit 5
2
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Definition of Agriculture as Defined within the 2013 Land Use and Development Code
3
Figure 3: Applicant’s Modified Definition of Agriculture
II.APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
The amendment request is subject to the Garfield County Land Use Resolution of 1978 including
Section 4.00 Planned Unit Developments (4.00 through 4.12.04 inclusive) and Section 10.00
Amendment (10.00 – 10.04 inclusive) as well as provisions of the current Land Use and
Development Code of 2013. The Applicant is required to complete public notice for the Board’s
public hearing in accordance with the applicable code requirements. The County Attorney’s
Office will review and confirm the adequacy of the public notice prior to opening the public
hearing on May 8, 2019.
III.LAND USE BACKGROUND
The Battlement Mesa PUD was created as a planned community that would house the employees
attracted to the area to work for the oil industry, more specifically, Exxon. Under the orginal
zoning, the “central core” area was intended for high density residential and commercial
development, as well as schools and other public uses.
The commercial area is centrally located within the development and was originally planned to
provide retail, service and professional office space to a community of 23,000 residents.
However, the demand for these uses was dramatically reduced when Exxon closed their facilities
on May 2, 1982, which was immediatley after the Resolution for the PUD was approved in the
same year.
Portions of the PUD have been subdivided over the past 35 years but a large portion of the
property remains un-subdivided. The existing residential subdivisions within the PUD are
Saddleback Village, Monument Creek Village, Willow Creek Village, Battlement Creek Village,
Valle View Village and The Fairways.
IV.PUD ZONING AND ASSOCIATED USES AND STAFF ANALYSIS
As submitted, the application is not consistent with the Land Use Code or Comprehensive Plan
and does not take into consideration crucial elements of the PUD zoning and its associated uses,
the overall well-being of Battlement Mesa residents or the negative effects of hemp cultivation
4
on surrounding neighborhoods. Because of this, Staff is recommending denial of the application
as submitted. If the Planning Commission chooses to assess alternative options, Staff has
included an Option B which would allow a modified version of the Applicant’s proposal that takes
into consideration the reasons for denial. The following is an explanation and analysis of the
Battlement Mesa PUD zoning and associated uses, overall Garfield County zoning designations,
proposed uses to be added to the PUD and the reasoning for Staff’s recommendation of Denial
as well as the alternative Option B Conditions of Approval (see pages 20-21).
1. Battlement Mesa PUD Purposes and Objectives
As Table 1 (below) demonstrates, agricultural uses were not contemplated in the original
creation of the Battlement Mesa PUD. According to the original application, the PUD was
created to accomplish the following goals:
a. To provide for necessary commercial, recreational, and education facilities
conveniently located to housing;
b. To insure that the provisions of the zoning laws which direct the uniform
treatment of dwelling type, bulk, density, and open space within each zoning
district will not be applied to the improvements of the subject lands by other than
lot by lot development in a manner which would distort the objectives of the
zoning laws;
c. To encourage innovations in residential and commercial development so that
growing population demands may be met by greater variety in type, design, and
layout of buildings and by the conservation and more efficient use of open space
ancillary to said buildings;
d. To encourage a more efficient use of land and of public services, or private services
in lieu thereof, and to reflect changes in the technology of land development so
that resulting economies may endure to the benefit of those who need homes;
e. To lessen the burden of traffic on streets and highways;
f. To encourage the building of a new community incorporating the best features of
modern design;
g. To conserve the value of the land;
h. To provide a procedure which can relate the type, design, and layout of residential
and commercial development to the particular site, thereby encouraging
preservation of the site’s natural characteristics; and
i. To encourage integrated planning in order to achieve the above purposes and
objectives of development.
Planned Unit Developments are developments that allow flexibility and divergence from
the typical surrounding zoning requirements. The Battlement Mesa PUD specifically
allows higher densities and a wider mix of by-right uses than the neighboring Garfield
County zoning and was created specifically for residential development and the uses
accessory and complementary to it. It is critical to fully analyze and assess the potential
impacts that new agricultural uses will have on the well-being of the residents, existing
land uses and natural environment within the PUD. Because the original purpose of the
PUD was residential development and the addition of agricultural uses has the potential
5
to negatively impact residents, Staff recommends denial of the application as it was
submitted. Staff has included two options for the Planning Commission to consider:
1. Denial of the application as submitted
2. Approval of the application with various conditions to mitigate negative
impacts of agriculture within the PUD.
Table 1: Battlement Mesa PUD Zoning and Associated Uses
Zoning Use
RDR – Rural Density
Residential
Uses by Right: Detached single-family dwellings and
accessory uses, parks, temporary real estate offices and
model homes
Conditional Uses: Church, school, community building, day
nursery, fire station, other public uses
Special Uses: Natural resource extraction and processing
LDR – Low Density Residential Uses by Right: Detached and attached single-family dwellings
and accessory uses, parks, temporary real estate offices and
model homes
Conditional Uses: Church, school, community building, day
nursery, fire station, other public uses
Special Uses: Natural resource extraction and processing
MDR – Medium Density
Residential
Uses by Right: Detached single-family, townhouse, zero-lot-
line, two-family, multi-family dwellings and accessory uses,
parks, temporary real estate offices and model homes
Conditional Uses: Church, school, community building, day
nursery, fire station, other public uses
Special Uses: Natural resource extraction and processing
CAR – Central Area Residential Uses by Right: Detached single-family, townhouse, zero-lot-
line, two-family, multi-family dwellings and accessory uses,
parks, temporary real estate offices and model homes
Conditional Uses: Church, school, community building, day
nursery, fire station, other public uses
Special Uses: Natural resource extraction and processing,
guest suites within multi-family dwellings
MHR – Mobile Home
Residential
Uses by Right: Mobile and manufactured homes, detached
single-family dwellings and accessory uses, mobile home
parks, camper parks, recreational vehicle parks and
accessory uses, parks, temporary real estate offices and
model homes
Conditional Uses: Church, school, community building, fire
station, other public uses
Special Uses: Natural resource extraction and processing
NC – Neighborhood Center Uses by Right: Retail commercial and personal service
establishments, business and professional offices, gasoline
6
service stations, unmanned carwash facilities
Conditional Uses: Church, community building, day nursery
and school, auditorium, public building for administration,
fraternal lodge, art gallery, museum, library
Special Uses: Natural resource extraction and processing
OP – Office Park Uses by Right: Professional and business offices, research
facilities, testing laboratories, manufacturing, fabrication and
processing facilities, personal service establishments
Conditional Uses: Church, community building, day nursery
and school, auditorium, public administration building,
fraternal lodge, art gallery, museum, library
Special Uses: Natural resource extraction and processing
BC – Business Center Uses by Right: Retail, commercial and personal services
establishments, business and professional offices, research
facilities, testing laboratories, manufacturing, fabrication,
processing and assembly facilities, churches, day-care
centers, indoor theaters, recreation facilities, gasoline
service stations, motels and hotels, multi-family dwellings,
other public and semi-public uses
Conditional Uses: Church, community building, day nursery
and school, auditorium, public administration building,
fraternal lodge, art gallery, museum, library
Special Uses: Natural resource extraction and processing
PSR – Public, Semipublic and
Recreation
Uses by Right: School sites, governmental offices, police and
fire stations, library, day-care centers, public and semi-public
health facilities, recreation uses, churches, community
center, neighborhood community center, water, well sites,
sewage treatment facilities, water treatment and storage
facilities, other public and private utility facilities and
buildings, community open space and parks, golf course with
clubhouse
Conditional Uses: Not applicable
Special Uses: Natural resource extraction and processing
2. Agricultural Uses in Unincorporated Garfield County vs. Battlement Mesa PUD
Parcels of land within unincorporated Garfield County that are not a part of a PUD and
are zoned Rural (R), Residential Suburban (RS) and Resource Lands (RL) allow agriculture
as a Use by Right. Figure 4 shows the zoning surrounding the Battlement Mesa PUD to the
north, east and south where agriculture is permitted by right by the Rural zoning district
designation. Because agricultural uses are not allowed within all other zone districts
within overall unincorporated Garfield County (Residential Urban, Commercial Limited,
Commercial General, Industrial, etc.), Staff does not recommend that this text
amendment allow these uses in Battlement Mesa’s similar zone districts (Medium Density
7
Residential, Central Area Residential, Neighborhood Center, Office Park, or Business
Center) if approved.
Figure 4: Garfield County Zoning
As discussed above, Planned Unit Developments differ from typical zoning regulations in
terms of allowed densities, uses and overall goals of development. The Battlement Mesa
PUD was specifically created for residential development and the uses accessory and
complementary to it and therefore should not be viewed through the same lens as
development within the Rural, Residential-Suburban or Resource Lands zoning of overall
Garfield County. Agriculture is a necessary use within Garfield County but unfortunately
can be accompanied by air quality impacts, noise impacts, odor impacts and related
nuisance impacts. With this in consideration, it is crucial that additional regulations are in
8
place for potentially incompatible uses that were not initially contemplated within the
PUD.
Figure 5: Battlement Mesa PUD Zoning Map
Because the Applicant has represented that hemp is an agricultural product that would
potentially be grown with the approval of the application, Staff maintains that additional
attention should be paid to this possibility. As discussed in detail in Item 3 below, a
byproduct of hemp cultivation is a strong odor during harvest time that has been known
to disturb surrounding communities. Anecdotally, Staff has received multiple complaints
from residents near the Town of New Castle complaining about strong odors emanating
from hemp grow operations in unincorporated Garfield County. This specific application
has also received multiple comments from Battlement Mesa residents in opposition to
the proposal specifically because of hemp. Staff recommends that if the amendment is
approved, additional conditions involving the regulation of hemp should be required due
to the known adverse byproducts of its cultivation.
Comments were received from the Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District expressing
concern over the application’s proposal to allow agricultural uses near developed
residential and commercial neighborhoods as well as areas where future growth of the
community will most likely occur. The BMMD requested that “those areas be removed
from the text amendment consideration as many of these areas are not practical for
agricultural cultivation of any type”. They also requested that areas where utility
9
infrastructure is readily available for future growth of the community also be removed
from consideration. Option B conditions of approval take these concerns into account.
The conditions of approval within Option B include restrictions on the zone districts in
which agriculture can occur in the PUD. These zone district restrictions combined with
setback requirements from residential development (see Item 4 discussion below) and
additional permitting requirements specifically for hemp cultivation in certain areas of
the LDR and PSR zone districts that are in closer proximity to residential development will
attempt to mitigate the potentially negative byproducts of agricultural operations and
their effects on residential areas.
More specifically, the RDR, LDR and PSR zone districts farthest removed from residential
development within the eastern region of the PUD would be allowed to have all types of
agriculture with no permits required. Certain LDR and PSR zone districts that are closer to
residential development, are upwind from the residential and commercial core of the
PUD and within potentially sensitive riparian areas would be required to obtain
Conditional Use Permits for hemp operations. Agricultural uses are disallowed entirely in
specific LDR zones that lie within the residential and commercial core of Battlement Mesa.
These specific geographical constraints are explained further in Condition of Approval 3
(pages 20-21) and are laid out visually in an attached map.
Figure 6: An area within the LDR zone district where agriculture would potentially occur
10
3.Proposed Hemp Cultivation
The Applicant has represented that hemp may be one of the agricultural products
cultivated in the PUD with the approval of this application. Amendment 64, section 16(d)
to the Colorado Constitution legalized industrial hemp in the state and defines it as “a
plant of the genus Cannabis and any part of the plant, whether growing or not, containing
a delta-0 tetrahydocannabinol (THC) concentration of no more than three-tenths of one
percent (.03%) on a dry weight basis”. Any Cannabis with a percentage of THC above .03%
is considered to be marijuana. Hemp is grown and used for a wide range of products
including construction and materials, food products, medicine, raw fiber and raw oil. A
byproduct of its cultivation however is an odor that can be detected during its harvest
time in the fall months. There is a lack of research and precedence studies to determine
adequate mitigation techniques for outdoor hemp cultivation. Because of this, Staff
maintains that erring on the side of caution is critical when recommending conditions of
approval.
4.Residential Setbacks
Both Staff analysis of the PUD and submitted public comment on the application has
demonstrated the need for residential setbacks from the proposed agricultural uses.
Similar to odor mitigation for hemp cultivation, there is a lack of research and precedence
studies to determine an adequate setback distance of agriculture from residential
property lines. No setback distance for agriculture, specifically hemp, from residential
development exists within County regulations or the Department of Agriculture
regulations. Staff recommends to Planning Commission a 300-foot setback for agricultural
uses from developed properties (properties annexed into the Battlement Mesa Service
Association); however, since Staff is unable to present a conclusive argument for this
setback distance, it may be altered depending on what the Planning Commission believes
to be adequate.
5.PSR Zone District and Common Open Space
As Table 1 demonstrates, the Public, Semipublic and Recreation (PSR) zone district within
the PUD allows a wide spectrum of uses permitted by right ranging from recreational
amenities to residential and public buildings to utility facilities. As represented in the
original application and required by the Garfield County Land Use Resolution of 1978,
twenty-five percent (25%) of all acreage within the PUD must be devoted to Common
Open Space. This allocation for Common Open Space resides within the PSR zone district
which occupies thirty-eight percent (38%) of the total PUD acreage. The location of this
required 25% common open space within the PSR zone district is unknown as it was not
submitted with the application and is not a part of the recorded original Battlement Mesa
PUD resolution. In order to confirm that the common open space requirement will not be
affected by this amendment, Staff has included a condition of approval within Option B
requiring the submittal of this mapping.
Staff has also included a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to obtain a
Conditional Use Permit for hemp cultivation in a particular portion of the PSR zone district
11
that is closer to residential development than other PSR areas within the PUD. Staff
maintains that this area be subject to a higher level of review due to its proximity to
residences to the south and east. In addition, Garfield County Environmental Health
confirmed that by far,
winds come from the
west and southwest
in this area, meaning
that agricultural sites
would sit upwind
from the residential
and commercial core
of Battlement Mesa.
Odors from hemp
operations would be
much more likely to
travel in this direction
than areas of the PUD
east of residential
development (See
Exhibit 9).
Figure 7: Wind Direction/Wind Rose diagram
Source: Garfield County Environmental Health (Larger bar = More frequent winds from that direction)
V.PUBLIC AND REFERRAL COMMENTS
The Applicant has provided documentation that all required notice mailings have been
completed in accordance with both the Garfield County Land Use Resolution of 1978 and the
Land Use and Development Code of 2013. Referral Comments received on the Application are
attached as Exhibits and summarized below:
A.Colorado Parks & Wildlife (Exhibit 6): Does not anticipate significant negative impacts to
the area’s wildlife or wildlife habitat; recommends following general practices to
minimize disturbance and wildlife impacts.
B.Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District (Exhibit 7): Requests that agricultural uses be
removed from consideration in residential and commercial areas as well as where utility
infrastructure is available for future growth.
C.Garfield County Vegetation Management (Exhibit 8): The Applicant will need to complete
a noxious weed map and/or weed inventory as well a weed management plan.
D.Garfield County Environmental Health (Exhibit 9): Issues relating to air quality and
nuisance impacts from agricultural operations should be assessed. The Applicant should
attempt to reduce odor impacts to adjacent properties.
12
No referral comments were received from the Town of Parachute, Battlement Mesa Concerned
Citizens, Battlement Mesa Parks and Recreation District or Battlement Mesa Oil and Gas
Committee.
Multiple public comments were received in response to the application, mostly in opposition,
and are attached as Exhibits. A public meeting hosted by the Applicant was also held on April 22,
2019. The main concern among residents of the PUD is the cultivation of agricultural products,
primarily hemp, near residential neighborhoods. Other concerns focused on other issues such as
wildlife habitat and water supply.
VI. REVIEW CRITERIA AND ANALYSIS
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan
As submitted, the application is not consistent with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan
2030. The plan designates the site as Residential High (RH) and is located within the Town of
Parachute Area of Influence. This high-density designation (1/3 to <2 acres per dwelling unit) is
contrary to the very low densities associated with agricultural uses. Excerpts from the
Comprehensive Plan that are applicable to the proposal are outlined below in italics and an
excerpt from the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map is also provided.
Figure 8: Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 Excerpt
13
Chapter 2 – Future Land Use – Growth in Unincorporated Communities
The Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the existence of several unincorporated communities that
have a dense level of development, mix of uses and urban services provided by special districts.
This section from the Comprehensive Plan confirms the fact that unincorporated communities,
e.g. the Battlement Mesa PUD, have varying needs and characteristics as compared to
development in the broader Garfield County landscape. They are self-contained subdivisions that
contain town and neighborhood centers that primarily serve their own populations.
Chapter 3, Section 5 – Recreation, Open Space and Trails
Issue: Zoning, Subdivision and Planned Unit Development regulations must be consistent with
general county open space and recreational objectives.
Goal No. 1: Assure that new residential development provides recreation opportunities for county
residents that are appropriate to the density and type of development or that contribute land
and/or funding to a county-wide trail and recreation system.
Policy No. 2: Any actions regarding open space and trails must respect the property rights of land
owners in the county and must be based on the concepts of just compensation or mutual benefit
for landowners, residents and visitors.
This section confirms the need to accurately map the required 25% common open space areas
within the PUD in order to make sure the amendment to allow agriculture within PSR zones does
not negatively affect the public’s right to utilize such spaces.
Chapter 3, Section 6 – Agriculture
Issue: Agriculture accounts for approximately 2% of county employment, and contributes $22
million to the county economy.
Issue: Residential subdivisions often cause conflicts with agricultural practices, which can
eventually discourage farming/ranching.
Goal No. 1: Promote the continuation and expansion of agricultural uses.
Goal No. 2: Preserve a significant rural character in the county.
Policy No. 1: Agricultural land will be protected from infringement and associated impacts of
higher-intensity land uses with buffer areas between the agricultural uses and the proposed
project.
Strategy/Action No. 3: Ensure active agricultural uses are buffered from higher-intensity adjacent
14
uses.
Strategy/Action No. 5. Review and revise county land use regulations as appropriate to increase
their effectiveness for land conservation and agricultural protection.
As Garfield County is a Right to Farm County, the Comprehensive Plan’s section on agriculture
largely supports agriculture within Garfield County, however, as discussed in Section III, the
differences between agricultural uses within overall Garfield County and agricultural uses within
a Planned Unit Development that did not initially plan for them should be recognized and treated
differently. Because this is an approved PUD with its own standards (primarily residential and
commercial uses supporting the residents), the language promoting agricultural uses in the
Comprehensive Plan does not entirely apply to this specific application.
Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978 Approval Standards
The following provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978 include the approval
standards for PUD approval and related amendments. Staff comments are shown in bold.
4.02: PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES OF DEVELOPMENT
4.02 (1) To provide for necessary commercial, recreational, and education facilities
conveniently located to housing.
As submitted, the application’s stipulation that agricultural uses will no longer be allowed on
a parcel once it has been annexed into the Battlement Mesa Service Association seeks to satisfy
this criteria but does not fully meet it. If approved, Option B’s recommended conditions of
approval stipulate that agricultural uses must be set back from residences and that more
intensive uses (e.g. hemp) must undergo an additional permitting process in specific areas.
These additional provisions facilitate and allow future development of commercial, residential
and educational facilities.
4.02 (2) To provide for well located, clean, safe, and pleasant industrial sites involving a
minimum of strain on transportation facilities.
As submitted, the application’s definition of by-right agricultural uses has the propensity to
allow industrial agricultural uses involving the “packaging, processing and distribution” of
agricultural products that could be potentially harmful to surrounding residents. The
recommended conditions of approval stipulate that these uses be removed from the definition
of agricultural uses within the PUD, thereby eliminating the potential propagation of industrial
agricultural operations within the PUD.
4.02 (3) To insure that the provisions of the zoning laws which direct the uniform treatment
of dwelling type, bulk, density, and open space within each zoning district will not be applied to
the improvement of land by other than lot by lot development in a manner which would distort
the objectives of the zoning laws;
This standard is generally not applicable.
15
4.02 (4) To encourage innovations in residential, commercial, and industrial development
and renewal so that the growing demands of the population may be met by greater variety in
type, design, and layout of buildings and by the conservation and more efficient use of open space
ancillary to said buildings; and
As submitted, the application allows agriculture as a use by right within the entire Public,
Semipublic and Recreation (PSR) zone district and does not show where the required common
open space areas within the Battlement Mesa PUD exist. The recommended conditions of
approval within Option B are included in order to preserve existing open space within the PUD
by instituting setbacks from agricultural operations that will protect the green space
surrounding residences, requiring special permitting for hemp cultivation and by requiring
mapping of the percentage of open space mandated by Garfield County regulation.
4.02 (5) To encourage a more efficient use of land and of public services, or private services
in lieu thereof, and to reflect changes in the technology of land development so that resulting
economies may inure to the benefit of those who need homes;
4.02 (6) To lessen the burden of traffic on streets and highways;
4.02 (7) To encourage the building of new towns incorporating the best features of modern
design.
These standards are generally not applicable.
4.02 (8) To conserve the value of land;
As submitted, the application does not meet this standard. Agricultural uses may negatively
impact property values, specifically due to the odors associated with hemp cultivation. The
recommended conditions of approval within Option B strive to conserve the value of land by
enacting zoning and setback constraints on agricultural development within the PUD. These
constraints will attempt to direct agricultural development away from residential and
commercial uses within the PUD.
4.02 (9) To provide a procedure which can relate the type, design, and layout of residential,
commercial, and industrial development to the particular site, thereby encouraging preservation
of the site’s natural characteristics; and
As submitted, the application does not meet this standard; the submitted definition of by-right
agricultural uses has the propensity to allow industrial agricultural uses involving the
“packaging, processing and distribution” of agricultural products that could be potentially
harmful to surrounding residents and the site’s natural characteristics. The recommended
conditions of approval stipulate that these uses be removed from the definition of agricultural
uses within the PUD, thereby eliminating the potential propagation of industrial agricultural
operations within the PUD that could be harmful to the site’s natural characteristics.
4.02 (10) To encourage integrated planning in order to achieve the above purposes and
objectives of development.
16
As submitted, the addition of agricultural uses to all districts, except MHR, does not show an
integrated planning approach. The recommended conditions of approval in Option B set out
strict rules and regulations for agricultural uses within the PUD in order to achieve the
previously mentioned purposes and objectives of development.
4.04 CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
No PUD shall be approved unless it is found by the County Commissioners to be in general
conformity with the County’s general plan.
As submitted, the application has not been found to be in general conformity with Garfield
County’s Comprehensive Plan. See Section VI above for discussion.
4.06: INTERNAL COMPATIBILITY OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
It is recognized that certain individual land uses, regardless of their adherence to all the design
elements provided for in this section, might not exist compatibly with one another. Therefore, a
proposed PUD shall be considered form the point of view of the relationship and compatibility of
the individual elements of the Plan, and no PUD shall be approved which contains incompatible
elements.
As submitted, the application presents multiple compatibility issues involving conflicts between
the existing residential development and the potential air quality issues, noise, odor and
related nuisance impacts associated with the proposed agricultural uses. For this reason, Staff
recommends denial of the application. The conditions of approval presented in Option B seek
to decrease or eliminate compatibility issues between residential and agricultural uses by
disallowing agriculture in denser zone districts, requiring setbacks and requiring additional
permitting procedures for hemp cultivation.
4.07: STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS
4.07 (1) The County Commissioners may approve a proposed PUD rezoning upon a finding
that it will implement the purposes of this section and will meet the standards and requirements
set forth in this section.
4.07 (2) Off-Street Parking
This standard is generally not applicable.
4.07.03 (1) The PUD shall have an appropriate relationship to the surrounding area, with
unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area being minimized.
As submitted, the application could have unreasonable adverse impacts on neighboring
properties. The recommended conditions of approval within Option B strive to reduce
potentially unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area in the form of air quality
issues, noise, odor and related nuisance impacts by enacting zoning and setback constraints
on agricultural development within the PUD. These constraints will attempt to direct
agricultural development away from residential and commercial uses within the PUD
4.07.03 (2) Internal Street Systems
17
4.07.03 (3) Parking
These standards are generally not applicable.
4.07.03 (4) The PUD shall provide Common Open Space adequate in terms of location, area,
and type of the Common Open Space, and in terms of the uses permitted in the PUD. The PUD
shall strive for optimum preservation of the natural features of the terrain.
As submitted, the application does not show where Common Open Space exists within the PUD
and therefore does not meet this condition. Option B recommended conditions of approval
require that these open space areas be mapped and that the required 25% common open space
area designation is met with the addition of agricultural uses to the PUD. In addition, the
permitting for hemp within the Public, Semipublic and Recreation (PSR) district will further
safeguard the natural features of the terrain.
4.07.03 (5) Variety of Housing Types and Densities.
4.07.03 (6) Privacy between Dwelling Units
4.07.03 (7) Pedestrian Ways
4.07.04 Building Height Increases
4.07.05 Minimum Lot Area and Minimum Setback Decrease
These standards are generally not applicable.
4.07.06 Overall Average Residential Density
The highest densities of residential development in the Battlement Mesa PUD are within the
core areas that are zoned for medium to high-density residential and commercial development
as well as the surrounding residential subdivisions. As submitted, the application presents
compatibility issues with allowing agriculture, a use that would require low densities, into
higher density zoning districts within the PUD. The conditions of approval within Option B
present a solution to these conflicting densities by only allowing agriculture within low-density
zone districts.
4.07.07 The Minimum Number of Acres that may comprise a PUD is Two Acres
This standard is generally not applicable.
4.07.08 All uses which are permitted in any other zone district may be permitted in PUD’s
subject to the provisions of Section 4.06 (this section requires consistency with the General Plan)
hereof. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following uses separate or in
combination, may be permitted in PUD’s:
Although agricultural uses were not listed in the 1978 PUD Guidelines, they were listed in the
underlying zoning prior to the creation of the PUD.
4.07.09 Twenty-five percent of the total area within the boundaries of any PUD shall be
devoted to Common Open Space; provided, however, that the County Commissioners may reduce
such requirement if they find that such decrease is warranted by the design of, and the amenities
and features incorporated into, the plan and that the needs of the occupants of the PUD for
Common Open Space can be met in the proposed PUD and the surrounding area.
18
As submitted, the application does not show where Common Open Space exists within the PUD
and therefore does not meet this condition. Option B recommended conditions of approval
require that these open space areas be mapped and that the 25% common open space area
designation is met with the addition of agricultural uses to the PSR zone district and that all
agricultural uses be prohibited within this required common open space.
4.12.03 (2) No substantial modifications, removal, or release of the provisions of the Plan by
the County shall be permitted except upon a finding by the County, following a public hearing
called and held in accordance with the provisions of C.R.S. 1973, 24-67-104, that the modification,
removal, or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire
PUD, does not affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting
upon or across a street from the PUD or the public interest, and is not granted solely to confer a
special benefit upon any person.
As submitted, the proposal does not meet this standard in that it includes incompatible
elements that could affect in a substantially adverse manner the public interests by allowing
agricultural uses in or close to residential developments. For this reason, Staff has
recommended denial as Option A. The recommended conditions of approval within Option B
strive to make sure that incompatible elements that could adversely affect the public interest
are minimized by enacting zoning and setback constraints on agricultural development within
the PUD.
VII.PLANNING COMMISSION OPTIONS AND SUGGESTED FINDINGS
As submitted, the request for a Text Amendment to the Battlement Mesa PUD Guide – District
Regulations to allow agricultural uses within the PUD does not meet the requirements of the
Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978. Staff presents two options for the Planning
Commission to consider for a final recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
Option A is a finding of denial. Option B is a finding of approval with specific conditions that would
modify the original proposal to be more code compliant. This option disallows agricultural uses
within certain PUD zone districts, requires an agricultural setback from parcels annexed into the
Battlement Mesa Service Association and only allows hemp cultivation within certain areas of the
Low Density Residential (LDR) and Public, Semipublic and Recreation (PSR) zone districts with a
Conditional Use Permit.
Option A: Denial
Suggested Findings
1.That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning
Commission.
2.That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all
pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were
heard at the meeting.
19
3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the PUD Amendment Application to Amend
the Battlement Mesa PUD Guide – District Regulations is not in the best interest of the
health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield
County.
4. Based on the impacts of the proposed PUD Text Amendment including but not limited to
the potential for air quality impacts, noise impacts, odor impacts, and related nuisance
impacts, the Application has not met the requirements of the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution of 1978 in accordance with the Battlement Mesa PUD approval Resolution No.
82-121 and the provisions set forth therein, including but not limited to the Sections
described below:
a. That the Application is not in compliance with Section 4.02: Purposes and Objectives
of Development including but not limited to Subsections (8) conservation of the value
of the land; and (9) encouraging preservation of the site’s natural characteristics.
b. That the Application is not in compliance with Section 4.04 as the proposed PUD Text
Amendment does not reflect general conformance with the County’s Comprehensive
Plan including conflicts with the Residential High Density Designation for the site.
c. That the Application is not in compliance with Section 4.06 as the proposed PUD Text
Amendment includes land use that would prove incompatible with existing residential
land use.
d. That the Application is not in compliance with Section 4.07.03, Subsections (1) related
to unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area being minimized and (4)
provision of adequate Common Open Space and the optimum preservation of the
natural features of the terrain.
e. That the Application has not adequately demonstrated compliance with Section
4.07.09 related to provision of Common Open Space.
f. That the Application is not in compliance with 4.12.03 (2) as the Proposed Text
Amendment will affect in a substantially adverse manner the public interest based on
nuisance impacts including but not limited to air quality, noise, and odor on
residential, commercial, business center, and public, semi-public, and recreational
uses within the PUD.
5. That the Application is not in general conformance with the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan.
20
Option B: Zone District Constraints, Agricultural Setback and Required Permitting
for Hemp Cultivation
Option B disallows agricultural uses within all zone districts except Rural Density Residential
(RDR), Low Density Residential (LDR) and Public, Semipublic and Recreation (PSR), requires a 300-
foot agricultural setback from parcels that are annexed into the Battlement Mesa Service
Association and requires a Conditional Use Permit for hemp cultivation within specific LDR and
PSR zone district areas.
Suggested Findings
1.That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning
Commission.
2.That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all
pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were
heard at the meeting.
3.That for the above stated and other reasons, request to Amend the Battlement Mesa PUD
Guide – District Regulations is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience,
order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
4.That the application is in general conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as
amended.
5.That with the adoption of conditions and for the above stated and other reasons the
application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use
Resolution of 1978.
Suggested Conditions of Approval
1.Prior to final approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall
demonstrate that the proposed text amendment shall maintain compliance with all other
PUD standards for the Battlement Mesa PUD including Common Open Space
Requirements.
2.All representations of the Applicant as contained in the Application submittals shall be
conditions of approval unless specifically modified by the conditions contained herein.
3.The Battlement Mesa PUD Guide District Regulations shall be amended to include the
following:
a.“Packaging, processing, and distribution of agricultural commodities” shall be
removed from the submitted definition of agriculture.
21
b.Agricultural uses, as amended by these conditions, shall be allowed within the
Rural Density Residential (RDR), Low Density Residential (LDR) and Public,
Semipublic and Recreation (PSR) zone districts not annexed into the BMSA as a
Use by Right, except as restricted by Conditions 1c, 1d and 1e.
c.No agricultural uses shall be allowed within the LDR (Low Density Residential) zone
districts west of County Road 308 and west of County Road 300E (also known as
East Battlement Parkway) except for the LDR zone districts directly south of
County Road 302 as reflected in the attached Exhibit (see attached mapping).
d.Agriculture for the cultivation of hemp or similar crops with industry recognized
odor impacts shall require a Conditional Use Permit if proposed within the Low
Density Residential (LDR) zone districts directly south of County Road 302 as
reflected in the attached Exhibit (see attached mapping).
e.Agriculture for the cultivation of hemp or similar crops with industry recognized
odor impacts shall require a Conditional Use Permit if proposed within the Public,
Semipublic and Recreation (PSR) zone districts west of County Road 308, west of
County Road 300E (also known as East Battlement Parkway) and west of County
Road 309 as reflected in the attached Exhibit (see attached mapping).
f.All agricultural uses, as amended by these conditions, will have a 300-foot setback
from parcels annexed into the Battlement Mesa Service Association.
4.The Applicant shall provide documentation of a process acceptable to the County of
providing notification of BMSA parcel annexation and the subsequent revocation of
agricultural uses on parcels and any setback adjustments.
5.The Applicant shall work with Garfield County Vegetation Management to address issues
from Steve Anthony’s April 29, 2019 referral comments (Exhibit 8). A demonstration of
compliance with this condition shall be provided by Garfield County Vegetation
Management.
Battlement MesaColoradoGraphic ScaleIn Feet: 1" = 1500'07501500 3000Land Requiring No CondiƟonal Use Permit for Hemp*Agricultural uses are only permiƩed within the LDR, RDR and PSR zone districts of the PUD.*LDR, RDR and PSR parcels within the PUD with turquoise striping (bolder stripes sloping downward) do not require special permiƫng for any agricultural use. *Hemp culƟvaƟon within all other PSR zone districts requires a CondiƟonal Use Permit.*See map for general agriculture/hemp restricƟons within the LDR zone district.No Agriculture (including hemp)allowed in these LDRzonesHemp Allowed inthese LDR zones byConditional Use Permit
From:Hoyer - DNR, Scott
To:Claire Dalby
Subject:Re: Garfield County Referral Request - Battlement Mesa PUD Text Amendment File No. PUAA 03-19-8717
Date:Wednesday, April 24, 2019 12:04:08 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Good Morning Ms Dalby,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Text Amendment application for the
Battlement Mesa Company. After reviewing this application, Colorado Parks and Wildlife
(CPW) does not anticipate significant negative impacts to the area's wildlife or wildlife habitat
through the proposed agricultural conversion.
CPW does recommend the following general practices to minimize disturbance and wildlife
impacts:
1.Adherence to a proper weed mitigation plan to prevent the spread of noxious weeds in
freshly disturbed soil
2.Use of "wildlife friendly" fencing specifications in the event that new fences are built.
Information regarding wildlife fencing can be obtained through CPW.
Please contact me if you have any questions
Scott Hoyer
District Wildlife Manager, Parachute
970 250 0873
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 4:32 PM Claire Dalby <cdalby@garfield-county.com> wrote:
Good Afternoon,
Garfield County Community Development is requesting referral comments for an
application submitted by Battlement Mesa Land Investments Parcel 1 LLC for a PUD Text
Amendment application. The request would amend the PUD Zone District text to allow
agriculture as defined in the application as a permitted Use by Right in all zone districts less
MHP zone district for all parcels inside the PUD boundary but not yet annexed into the
Battlement Mesa Service Association (BMSA).
The link to the application is available here.
Garfield County Community Development is requesting any referral comments by Monday,
April 29, 2019.
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Garfield County Public Health Department – working to promote health and prevent disease
Public Health
Garfield County Community Development
108 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Attn: Claire Dalby
May 1, 2019
Hello Claire,
I’ve reviewed the Battlement Mesa PUD Text Amendment Permitted Uses – for Agricultural
Uses in Multiple Zone Districts application and have the following comments:
1.Air quality: several of the parcels proposed for agricultural activities as a Use-by-Right
are upwind of other residential and commercial zone districts in the Battlement Mesa
PUD. The Garfield County Public Health department has collected wind speed and
direction data at their ambient air monitoring site in Battlement Mesa since 2012
(excluding 2015 when the monitor was in a different location) and found that winds are
very predominantly from the west-southwest in Battlement Mesa, as evidenced by a
wind-rose from 2016 at the site.
2.Nuisance impacts: Agriculture and hemp production does produce some air pollutants
such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including a suite of compounds called
terpenes. Some of these are considered hazardous air pollutants at certain
concentrations, but Garfield County’s VOC sample collection over the years has not
indicated that these pose a significant health risk to County residents. However, one of
the more notable impacts to public health from grow operations is in the nuisance odors
that migrate off-site. The applicant and operator should attempt to reduce odor impacts
to adjacent properties, including strategic location of grow operations away or downwind
from higher-density residential and commercial zoning; or odor mitigation.
195 W. 14th Street
Rifle, CO 81650
(970) 625-5200
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-6614
Exhibit 9
Garfield County Public Health Department – working to promote health and prevent disease
Thank you,
Morgan Hill, M.S.
Environmental Health Specialist III
Garfield County Public Health
2014 Blake Ave.
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 665-6383
From:Rhonda Coleman
To:Claire Dalby
Subject:Battlement Mesa Ag Re-zone Proposal
Date:Monday, April 22, 2019 9:38:05 PM
Attachments:Marijuana Farms Have Found a Way to Keep Their Stink From Irking the Neighbors.pdf
Claire,
Thank you for taking the time to drive to Battlement Mesa for the meeting tonight. I'd like to
share my suggestions as the leaders of our county look out for the best long-term interests of
all its residents and businesses.
As was admitted tonight, there is a strong odor associated with hemp agriculture. I raised a
question asking if Battlement had looked into odor control and Eric Schmela replied, "no,"
since they were not looking into indoor cultivation. There is provision in the proposed Land
Use Development Code for "necessary accessory uses and structures needed for harvesting,
packing, treating, or storing." Since these building uses could include odor issues, please
consider requiring odor control plans and equipment as part of any permission, if it is granted.
The city of Denver has been working on an odor control policy which can be accessed at:
https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/denver-marijuana-information/news/2016/odor-control-plan-
information---guidance.html.
Thankfully, there has also been work done on outdoor odor control. I'm attaching a news
article from March of 2019 about a cannibis owner in Santa Barbara who was willing to invest
in such a system to be a good neighbor. It can also be accessed
at https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/marijuana-farm-odor/. The effort spread.
According to the article, “Once we discovered this new equipment, most of the growers
in town ordered it,” Shelton says. “It took about eight to 12 months to build and install
them for all the growers. There was a noticeable reduction in odor throughout the
community, and the complaints decreased.”
That’s a pretty big deal in a place like Santa Barbara, where tensions between
residents and marijuana growers have run high. And it offers hope for grow
operations that want to establish suburban and even urban farms, shoulder to
shoulder with existing homes and businesses.
Of course I desire for the businesses in our county to have every opportunity to succeed, but
not at the expense of the quality of life that living in Battlement has afforded so many. Mr.
Schmela admitted that he drove through an area of hemp production to work each day and it
filled his entire car, but that it went away when he got far enough away. The residents of
Battlement and the students of GVMS and the employees who work in Battlement will not
have the privilege of passing through an odorous area. We must stay here to work, study, and
live. Please include strict odor control limits as you make wise decisions regarding all of the
county's residents.
Thank you,
Rhonda Coleman
101 Monument Ridge Road, Battlement (living about one mile from a proposed ag. site;
working about 1/2-3/4 mile from another)
Exhibit 10
Marijuana Farms Have Found a Way to Keep Their Stink From Irking the
Neighbors
New tech could make life a lot easier for other local growers–and the people around them
By
Brittany Martin
-
March 1, 2019
Cannabis entrepreneur Autumn Shelton was growing her bud business in Santa Barbara County when
she started getting complaints from neighbors about the odor coming off the plants. In order to ease
relations with the community, she worked with scientists to install a new odor-capture system that
could make it far easier for California marijuana farmers and homeowners to live side by side.
Working with her business partner, Shelton discovered the Bloomington, Indiana-based Byers
Scientific. The company had already built odor-capture solutions for waste water treatment plants,
landfills, and livestock feedlots, but cannabis was a new sector for them. Researchers at Byers were
able to develop a customized version of their waterless vapor-phase system that specifically addressed
the needs of marijuana farms.
“The Byers Scientific system was a game changer,” Shelton says.
The waterless vapor-phase system releases a mist of an odor-neutralizing vapor into the air, working
sort of like a high-tech, industrial-grade spritz of Febreze. In this case, the vapor binds specifically
with the fragrance compounds found in cannabis terpenes. When it’s running, it’s pretty effective at
hiding the scent of even a large marijuana operation.
After Autumn Brands adopted the tech, other Santa Barbara cannabis farms started hopping on the
trend quickly.
“Once we discovered this new equipment, most of the growers in town ordered it,” Shelton says. “It
took about eight to 12 months to build and install them for all the growers. There was a noticeable
reduction in odor throughout the community, and the complaints decreased.”
That’s a pretty big deal in a place like Santa Barbara, where tensions between residents and marijuana
growers have run high. And it offers hope for grow operations that want to establish suburban and
even urban farms, shoulder to shoulder with existing homes and businesses.
What worries Shelton is that, even as legitimate growers invest in this kind of infrastructure, not
everyone is going to be willing to play by the same rules–and that could make the whole marijuana-
growing industry look bad.
Exhibit 11
“Recently some residents have started to complain about the odor again,” she says. “It appears that
new illegal growers, and perhaps state-licensed growers, have popped up in the area. They do not
have odor control, causing the odor to drift throughout town. And in California its legal to grow six
plants at home, so you will also smell your neighbors’ plants when they are flowering, too.”
If you happen to find yourself living next to a marijuana farm that isn’t properly neutralizing odors,
while unpleasant, it could at least potentially be good for your health, according to Shelton.
“It’s important to remember that what we smell from the cannabis plant are terpenes, which are
found in numerous plant species and essential oils,” she says. “This means cannabis smells that drift
could possibly provide the positive effects that terpenes are known to do.”
https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/marijuana-farm-odor/
Garfield County Community Development
Glenn Hartmann
108 8ú Sr. 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
aHtätvËri
ÅPR 2 3 3üt$
,o,ffiîi5.'frfi?J,ilÅî
Mr. Harunann:
The zoning change for Battlement Mesa was presented to the Board on February 19. Residents
here were not notified untilApril. This is typical of BMSA. Residents here find out about issues like
this one at the 11û hour. I just want you to know that we do not consider BMSA to be a legitimate
HOA. The property ownership puts the ruling cadre at 60Yo vs. a 40Yo voting power for regular
homeownerc. I simply wanted you to be aware of this. I do not believe that any opportunity for a
vote on re-zoning has been considered.
1. I have no objection to hemp farming ort the three designated pieces of property. But will that
be put in writing as a limit? Or could this become a proverbial "slippery slope" for more
properties selected for agriculture within our PUD? This is the big question for properfy
owners. Hemp farming can cause an odor problem. It must be kept away from individual
homes.
2. At the recent BMSA annual meeting, Laurel Koning made one statement that bothered me.
oo That land is just sitting there doing us no good." Is vacant land a bad thing? V/hat about
wildlife - open spaces ? Do we have to develop every acre possible for a profit motive?
3. Nothing was said about property value impact.... possible increases in tar<es.
I do hope that everything has been carefully considered that might have an impact on homeowners
in Battlement Mesa. So many of us wçre caught buying here without knowledge of drilling. Realtors
did not disclose that information..... it is a big enough battle trying to keep wells from being drilled
adjacent to residentiat property. BMSA seems to forge ahead with what they deem is good business for
them - not always the home owner.
Carol kAbbott
19 Angelica Circle
Battlement Mesa, CO 81635 ckmesa@q.com 970-285-2349
o
Exhibit 12
From:Kay Merry
To:Claire Dalby
Subject:Battlement Mesa PUD Text Amendment
Date:Tuesday, April 23, 2019 11:06:09 AM
To Garfield County Community Development & Garfield County Commissioners,
I have been a resident of Battlement Mesa for 14 years. Agriculture is just
something that just doesn't belong in a residential area.
If one was living in an agriculture area we must than realize we may be living next
to an offensive odor from time to time, but not in our residential area. The
reason we chose to live is Battlement Mesa is to be a part of a residential
community, not agriculture. Our homes and properties were sold to us as
residential.
I can't imagine anyone wanting to invest in a $250,000. to $500,000. home to
live next to a Hemp field. I feel it will effect our home values. Maybe
Battlement Mesa Land Investment should invest in buying our homes.
Please consider our Residential Community and let it continue to be just that!
Thank You!
A Concerned Resident
Exhibit 13
From:JERRY MOHRLANG
To:Claire Dalby
Subject:Battlement Mesa Agriculture Application
Date:Tuesday, April 23, 2019 5:58:08 PM
Dear Ms. Dalby:
My wife and I attended the meeting on April 22nd at Battlement Mesa
wherein Eric Schmela presented Battlement Mesa Company's
application to include layering Agricultural designations to various
sections of land adjoining the Battlement Mesa development. My wife
and I have been residents of Battlement Mesa for 20 years and have
seen numerous changes to our community and the surrounding area
over the years. A few of these changes, particularly drilling within the
PUD have been controversial as is the issue involving layering
agricultural designations to BMC land adjacent to the community of
Battlement Mesa. I would, however, like to make a few points. My wife
and I both believe BMC has been a good steward in the development
and maintenance of Battlement Mesa and trust that this will continue in
the future. At the meeting on the 22nd, there were many objections
expressed concerning hemp farming, particularly the odor emitted
during a 2-3 week phase in the development of hemp plants and a few
objections to the connotation that the word "hemp" as a previously
illegal product seems to imply. My wife and I think differently.
Currently, there are hemp farms across the road from the golf course in
Battlement, another north of Parachute and also along the I-70 corridor
west of Glenwood Springs. There is no question that hemp emits an
odor during a short phase in its growing cycle but neither my wife nor I
find the odor overly offensive. I grew up on a farm and city dwellers
may be offended by the odor of other legal farm products such as
livestock, alfalfa, manure piles, hay stacks and so forth. The point
being, there will always be odors in whatever agricultural products are
grown and produced. Hemp is just another agricultural product as far
as we are concerned. Life is a cycle of changes and the introduction of
hemp is simply one of those changes. Perhaps the Planning
Commission in cooperation with Eric Schmela can ameliorate the
concerns of the few residents living in close proximity to these lands by
creating "buffer" zones between these villages and the lands in
question. In summary, my wife and I have no objection to BMC
Exhibit 14
"layering" land adjacent to Battlement and designating it as agricultural.
It is our hope that the Garfield County Planning Commission and
Garfield Commissioners will look favorably upon Battlement Mesa
Company's application.
Sincerely,
Jerry & Mary Lee Mohrlang
326 Lodgepole Circle
Battlement Mesa, CO
From:Carol A
To:Claire Dalby
Subject:zoning agriculture... Battlement Mesa
Date:Wednesday, April 24, 2019 4:00:44 PM
BMSA has a track record of making final decisions and then holding public meetings
simply because it
is required.... They will do as they please because this is not a real HOA. My
greatest concern
with the zoning change is PESTICIDES....... cases are going into courtrooms now
with people who
have developed cancer ( Round Up just one offender ) This is a very legitimate
concern.... we have
lots of wind here...... and get plenty of dust kicked up as is. There were also no
answers at meetings
regarding property values, water rates and use....... tax increases, etc. When do
homeowners have
any say?
Carol Abbott ckmesa@q.com 970-285-2349 Battlement Mesa.
Exhibit 15
From:Jiggs
To:Claire Dalby
Subject:Battlement Mesa Land Investments Parcel 1 LLC (BMLI)
Date:Wednesday, April 24, 2019 10:51:48 AM
Attachments:New Text Document.txt
Hi Claire: I am resubmitting my comments because I had obtained a
copy of a letter to Garfield County by Laurel Konig the BMSA Board
president that led me to believe that the BMLI property was being
annexed to BMAC. This was not the case so I am submitting a
different list of reasons to oppose the rezoning of the property.
Please destroy my previous email I sent to you concerning this
matter.
I really think that this matter should be continued until such time that
all opposition comments can be reviewed and satisfied and it would be
helpful if members of the planning and zoning board could personally
inspect the property involved to see what the impacts would be for
private property owners in the PUD.
I note that part of the land to be rezoned adjoins my back fence.
When I purchased my lot I was led to believe by a realtor representing
BMAC that all open spaces in the PUD were owned by the Battlement
Mesa Service Association and that all homeowners who were members
of BMSA had exclusive use of these spaces. I have paid my share of
the assessments for maintenance the open space as well as and
upkeep of the walking path on it since 1998. I now see that a large
portion of the open spaces are actually owned by Battlement Mesa
Land Investments and if the rezoning is approved the land could be
used as specified in the rezoning application to grow hemp and other
crops. If this is approved it will devastate my property values and
since I paid cash for my property will seriously endanger my
retirement funds. The map I note was made by Battlement Mesa and
is very misleading and does not correctly depict how the PUD actually
looks. For Instance there is a large flat field that my adjoins property
that probably be used for farming purposes. Please see also the
attachment listing additional reasons of my opposition to this matter.
Thank you
--
Garry Evenson
Exhibit 16
1. Battlement Mesa Land Investments (BMLI)Appears to be a seperate entity from BMSA
and therefor would not be be subject to Section V Service Association Properties or
to Article VIII General Restrictions Applicable t0 Property in the PUD
Declarations.
2. If the above is true it follows that the BMLI also would not be subjet to the
general restrictions that are listed, such as noxious odors, noise, motorized
vehicles on walking paths and open spaces etc. If so this would have a devastating
effect on the private property owners property values throughout the entire PUD.
3. Since the Board of Directors of the BMSA now includes Battlement Mesa Company
and 2 other Corporations which have a total of about 66% of the total votes on the
board can any of the assessments paid by the private property owners be used for
the operations conducted on the property? If these operations result in
additional expenses to BMSA can the private property owners be assessed for these
expenses?
4. Regarding Article VII, creation of the lien and personal obligation of
assessments.
a. Could any of the assessments be used to pay any business losses that the
owner or operater of the rezoned land might incur in view of the fact that the
private propery owners have only a minority of the vote on the BMSA board of
directers.
5. The BMSA web page advertises that they are a homeowners association which
appears to be not true since there may be at least 3 corporate delegates and they
control about 60% of the total votes on the board. The page indicates that BMSA
acts the same as a town counsel. If this is the case why weren't all of the
property owners allowed to vote on this zoning change the same as any one who lives
in an incorporated town or valid HOA?
6. If the rezoning is approved what effect would it have on the sellers of
privately owned dwelling property if the full disclosure of the ownership of the
open spaces and zoning changes are not fully disclosed at the time of sale to the
buyer?
Page 1
Exhibit 17
I am a homeowner and member of the BMSA in Battlement Mesa CO an am opposed to the rezoning of
the Property owned by Battlement Mesa Land Investments within the PUD for the following reasons.
Farming operations involve land preparations that generate large amounts of dust and the use of
fertilizers, insecticides and herbicides that emit toxic fumes and also some crops like hemp emit very
odious smells which can contaminate the air. Most of the homeowners use swamp coolers to cool
their homes. These coolers by using the outside air could contaminate the interior of the homes
resulting in a threat to the health and living conditions of the residents. There may be situations where
the residents would be unable to use the coolers for periods of time when the odors or toxic fumes
were at high levels.
I have a copy of a letter sent to Garfield County Community Development signed by the president of the
board of directors of the BMSA stating that the board is supportive of the rezoning. The delegates on
the board never to my knowledge notified the homeowners of this rezoning and never consulted with
the homeowners, who they are supposed to represent, as to what their opinions were. This is an
example of the arrogance of the delegates and their ignorance regarding the negative effects this
rezoning could have on the property values and health of the homeowners they represent.
Exhibit 18
From:noreply@formstack.com
To:Claire Dalby
Subject:[External] Website inquiry - Planner
Date:Wednesday, May 1, 2019 1:37:54 PM
Subject: Battlement Mesa PUD rezoning
Name: Karen Klink
Email: jimkarenklink@comcast.net
Phone Number: (970) 285-2179
Message: I attended the meeting that Eric held here in Battlement and would just like
to voice a concern with the rezoning (I am unable to attend the meetings at
Glenwood). At that meeting he pointed out the 3 top places that they would start with
the planting, and the #1 spot was the area right behind Mesa Ridge Townhomes. My
concern is this: If there are 3 areas that they are looking at, why on earth would they
choose the one closest to residents?? I am not completely against the idea, but if they
have areas that are in their sights for agriculture that are not that close to homes, I
don't understand why they would choose to start near residents. I would ask that they
please keep this in mind when they are making their decision.
Exhibit 19
From:jedidiah1978@gmail.com
To:Claire Dalby
Subject:[External] Battlement Mesa PUD Text Amendment
Date:Wednesday, May 1, 2019 4:25:52 PM
Claire Dalby,
I am a homeowner (204 Cliff View Cir, Parachute, CO 81635) and currently serve as Vice President of
our community Valley View Village. I have been to the meetings concerning the text change, read
the application in its entirety, and have spoken to multiple people in our neighborhood and
community. I understand why the BMC desires to change this into agriculture land from a business
standpoint. I also see the difficulties of declaring only specific parcels for such use. What I would like
to request consideration of, and updated wording to entail would be the following:
To mitigate the odor the crops of hemp would bring into the area (there are mitigation
processes even for outdoor growth.)
To limit where the crops would be grown by placing a 1000 foot distance from any areas and
borders of current properties annexed into the BMSA. (this would also go into effect when
future sites were annexed into the BMSA)
This would give current and future residents a greater comfort that fields would not
back up to their yards and homes.
To the Planning Committee Board, I would strongly ask you to consider these changes in wording
and restrictions for those who own property and are concerned how the current wording would
impact home values and the current living conditions we currently enjoy and appreciate. Thank you
for your time and consideration.
JEDIDIAH JOHNSTON
(720) 810-5800 Mobile
jedidiah1978@gmail.com
Exhibit 20
From:Gregg Slone
To:Claire Dalby
Subject:[External] Battlement Mesa Agricultural Zoning Change
Date:Wednesday, May 1, 2019 10:35:04 PM
My wife Susan and I own our primary residence at 91 Willow Creek Trail in Battlement Mesa.
We are strongly opposed to the request being made by the developers of Battlement Mesa to
allow agricultural use of the undeveloped property within the current limits of Battlement
Mesa.
The developer has proposed agricultural uses including the growing of hemp. As a member of
the cannabis family, hemp emits a strong, unpleasant smell while growing, particularly near
maturity and harvest. The developer is proposing to grow this product in an outdoor setting
next to existing residential properties and has already admitted that they will not be able to
control the odors. When we purchased our home, the listings advertised the wonderful views
of the mountains and the river from our back deck. Indeed, my wife and I currently spend
most summer evenings enjoying our deck. One of the three currently proposed plots for hemp
is located near the water treatment plant, immediately up-wind (based on prevailing winds) of
our back yard. If this application is approved, we will certainly suffer a significant loss of use
of our property due to the odors from the hemp operations.
Since the developer has included all undeveloped areas in this proposal, other potential
locations would include the greenbelt adjoining our property and the roadside open spaces
along West Battlement Mesa Parkway. Our subdivision was marketed as upscale retirement
living and with the golf course and the fountain, West Battlement Mesa Parkway provides an
attractive entrance to our property. The growing of cannabis products along this route would
likely deter families from wanting to purchase property in the adjacent neighborhoods causing
significant damage to property values. We purchased our home both for our retirement and as
an investment. The neighborhood has long been promoted as covenant protected living and
due to my wife's allergies, the non-rural nature of the development met our needs and desires.
The approval of this application would change the nature of the development into property that
would no longer match what we believed we were purchasing when we bought our home.
Lastly, this proposal flies in the face of the original goals of the Battlement Mesa
Development which was to provide residential and recreational space to it's residents. We are
not opposed to the growing of cannabis products, particularly for medicinal use. However,
there is plenty of rural, agricultural land available in the county for this use. The developer
was careful to exclude other aroma offensive agricultural uses next to our neighborhoods such
as poultry and feed lots as these would have significant negative effects on property values
and the enjoyment of the existing neighborhoods. Cannabis products fall into this same
category and do not belong next to established residential communities. The use of the land
should not be changed at this point to allow this offensive use.
This proposal is being pushed through at a rapid pace under the guise of agricultural use
giving many that received the notices the impression that we would have horses or corn crops
next to our homes. I have spoken to several of my neighbors and they were not aware that
hemp was the focus of this application. Our local counties, like many others, have already had
to deal with the problems created by the stench when cannabis growing facilities are placed in
close proximity to residential developments. When agricultural lands adjoin residential
property, the potential for this conflict naturally exists. When you purchase or build a home
Exhibit 21
next to agricultural property, you accept this possibility. In the case of this request, this
conflict will be created for properties in covenant protected neighborhoods, subsequent to
homeowners occupying their properties. The residents of Battlement Mesa purchased with the
reasonable expectation that this type of land use would not occur near their homes. Approval
of this application will subject these homeowners to an unreasonable change on their
properties. It is our hope that Garfield County will not approve this request in it's current form.
Sincerely
Gregg & Susan Slone
From:bbjerstedt@gmail.com
To:Claire Dalby
Subject:[External] Fw: Battlement Mesa PUD zoning change
Date:Thursday, May 2, 2019 8:33:40 AM
Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone
------ Original message------
From: Robert Bjerstedt
Date: Thu, May 2, 2019 5:57 AM
To: cdalby@garfieild-county.com;
Cc:
Subject:Battlement Mesa PUD zoning change
Good morning Claire,
I was at the meeting in Battlement on April 22 and wanted to get you my thoughts to convey to the commissioners.
Garfield County Commissioners,
First off we do not think there is any sense or need to have a text amendment to allow agricultural crops to be
cultivated within the PUD if there is ANY chance that it would allow hemp as a crop. Strike that from the list and
we could on the right path that allows Battlement Partners (BP) to generate money from what is now non-productive
land. I get they are in business and have the right to make money but we are residents of a community and deserve
th e right to pursue our rights of Life,Liberty,and the Pursuit of Happiness. Frankly a smelly crop that could abut my
or anybody's piece of America. Nobody knows what will happen to our property values should this go through, but
the chance that they would go down should weight heavily on the decision.
We on the Western Slope are already starting to feel the results of new policy that----- Message truncated -----
Exhibit 22
Exhibit 23
From:bbjerstedt@gmail.com
To:Claire Dalby
Subject:[External] Fw: Battlement Mesa PUD zoning change
Date:Thursday, May 2, 2019 5:09:58 PM
Sorry for the truncated email, gremlins. Here is what I wanted to submit. Any chance to get this in the record? I
don't know why most of the message did not send but I did have a devil of a time getting it to send.
Thanks for any help you can lend,
Bob
Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone
------ Original message------
From: bbjerstedt@gmail.com
Date: Thu, May 2, 2019 8:35 AM
To: c.dalby@garfield-county.com;
Cc:
Subject:Fw: Battlement Mesa PUD zoning change
Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone
------ Original message------
From: Robert Bjerstedt
Date: Thu, May 2, 2019 5:57 AM
To: cdalby@garfieild-county.com;
Cc:
Subject:Battlement Mesa PUD zoning change
Good morning Claire,
I was at the meeting in Battlement on April 22 and wanted to get you my thoughts to convey to the commissioners.
Garfield County Commissioners,
First off we do not think there is any sense or need to have a text amendment to allow agricultural crops to be
cultivated within the PUD if there is ANY chance that it would allow hemp as a crop. Strike that from the list and
we could on the right path that allows Battlement Partners (BP) to generate money from what is now non-productive
land. I get they are in business and have the right to make money but we are residents of a community and deserve
the right to pursue our rights of Life,Liberty,and the Pursuit of Happiness. Frankly a smelly crop that could abut my
or anybody's piece of America is certainly less than desirable. Nobody knows what will happen to our pro perty
values should this go through, but the chance that they would go down should weigh heavily on the decision.
We on the Western Slope are already starting to feel the results of new policy that will quite possibly destroy our
local economy. I realize that this zoning change could HELP MINIMIZE the negative impact of HB181, (to little to
late for Battlement Mesa on this one), So maybe thinking through this and compromising could be a win/win rather
than our accustomed "we lose". How about we take any lands inside the beltway off the plate? Or how about we
assure all existing Villages, as we call them, have buffer zones? Or how about we put a distance of say 2500 ft. from
any home, school, business? It is good enough for gas and oil so why not hemp. Or how about simply striking hemp
off the wording and go from there, we all know that hemp is a crop that WILL be planted now by BP or someone in
the future should BP sell the land. A simple assurance from Eric that there are areas that just don't make sense to
farm is not any assurance to me that it will not be in the future, and that is what we are dealing with here OUR
community's future. We have seen what new technology has done both good and bad here in Battlement Mesa.
Exhibit 24
I'm willing to bet that you would not be considering this if it was your your community, I'm sure the NIMBY would
ring loud and clear. All we are asking is for some common sense and thought go into this decision, it is time to put
people first for a change. Please do not let the residents of Battlement Mesa down this time. We do not want hemp in
our PUD boundary so please find a way to serve our needs and desires as you are elected to do. Your website shows
us at the top of the organizational chart. I'll leave it at that.
Thank you,
Robert & Cindy Bjersted t
108 Eagle Ridge Dr.
Battlement Mesa (Parachute) CO.
513-310-5747 / 513-310-9661
bbjerstedt@gmail.com
cindy.bjerstedt@gmail.com
From:J Taylor
To:Claire Dalby
Subject:[External] Battlement Mesa rezoning
Date:Friday, May 3, 2019 6:17:32 PM
I am a new resident to Battlement Mesa and I am hoping that
consideration will be given to control of the noxious odors produced by
certain plants. i would hope NOT o be driven out of the area by odors
and allergens.
Jacqueline Taylor 186 W Tamarack Circle
Exhibit 25
From:Sheryl Bower
To:Claire Dalby
Subject:Battlement Mesa Comments
Date:Wednesday, May 8, 2019 12:57:54 PM
Importance:High
Sheryl L. Bower, AICP
Garfield County
Community Development Director
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO
81601
(970)945-1377
From: noreply@formstack.com [mailto:noreply@formstack.com]
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 7:22 PM
To: Sheryl Bower <sbower@garfield-county.com>
Subject: [External] Garfield County website inquiry - Community Development
Subject: Change to Battlement PUD
Name: Stephen Hopple
Email: shopple@msn.com
Phone Number: (970) 948-5726
Message: I wanted to stress my strong opposition to any change to the Battlement
Mesa PUD that would include an agricultural hemp operation. I am unable to attend
the upcoming BOCC meeting addressing this matter and want to say that as a 20+
year resident of Garfield County, this change has only negative implications for the
residents living in Battlement Mesa.
Thanks for your consideration in this matter,
Stephen Hopple
Exhibit 26
From:Bev Reed
To:Claire Dalby; Glenn Hartmann
Subject:[External] Fw: Re-zoning of the Battlement Mesa PUD
Date:Monday, May 6, 2019 7:06:11 AM
I understand an application has been filed to re-zone much of the unused land in the
Battlement Mesa PUD. Battlement Mesa is a beautiful residential area of Garfield County with
great commercial potential that would be highly affected by the surrounding lands being re-
zoned to agricultural use. This could include farming equipment and storage units, possibly
packing plants and other related agricultural industries.
One rich man made what he perceives as poor business decisions and would now like to
subject thousands of residents to what could be unpleasant surroundings. He doesn't live on
Battlement Mesa, he simply owns the majority of it. One man's pocketbook verses 4,471
people's quality of life. Does that rich man even live in Garfield County? I don't know, but the
4,471 do and they count on their county to look after their best interest. Their ability to come
against a wealthy landowner is nothing without the help of their county officials.
Please be our champions.
Beverly Reed
445 Battlement Creek Trail
Battlement Mesa, CO 81635
970-309-5985
Exhibit 27
RECEryËD
t{Ay a 6 i]rjß
TY
Exhibit 28
Excluded
Excluded:
BMC Owned
Exhibit 29
Agriculture Areas
E¡ATTLEMENT MESA COMPANY
May 8.2017
Mr. Glenn Hartman
Senior Planner
Garfield County Community Development
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Glenn:
This letter is in request to provide you and your staff with additional information regarding the Baltlement
Mesa PUD and our recent application for a zone text amendment creating a new zone district.
It is to the best of my knowledge that allaspects of our holdíngs within the Battlement Mesa PUD are in
compliance with the 1978 code. Further, allactions taken by Battlement Mesa Company inside the PUD as a
result of applications brought before the County Commissioners and the related subsequent approvals have
been in compliance per allassociated Board Resolutions issued.
Per your request, please find the attached zone distríct map of Battlement Mesa and the associated acreage
calculations of each as calculated by SGM.
Further, to specifically address the Common Open Space issue as it relates to maintaining a minimum of
25o/o of such within the PUD, this condition remains met with great excess. Curently, PSR accounts for
39.6% of the PUD. Common Open Space as defined per 1978 Garfield County code section 4.01 .02 as
"A parcel or parcels of land, area of water, or a combination of land and water within lhe site designated for a
Planned Unit Development, designed and intended primarily for the use or enjoyment of residents,
occupants, and owners of the Planned Unit Development."
Under this definition, I believe that all PSR acreage would be counted due to the fact that sites already
developed are certainly enjoyed by residents, occupants, and owners. Schools, parks, churches, water and
sewer treatment, activity center, etc., are all improvements that are enjoyed to some degree by the groups
referenced aþove. Nonetheless, removing an estimated 170 acres of such ground that has been developed
as described above, leaves approximately 1,055 PSR acres, ot 34.1o/o of the PUD. This acreage certainly
meets the 1978 definition as wellas the required 25% Common Open Space requiremenl.
Regards,
Eric Schmela
President, Battlement Mesa Partners
73 Sipprelle Ðrive, Suite G
Phone 970.285.9740
Post Office Box 6000 Parachute, Colorado 81635
Fax970.285.9721 www.battlementmesa,com
Exhibit 30
Glenn Hartmann
Sent:
To:
Cc:
From:
Attachments:
Eric Schmela <eschmela@battlementmesa.com>
Monday, April 10, 20t712:52PM
Glenn Hartmann
Eric Schmela; Cari Mascioli
PSR calculations
B M D ist-Zone Zo n i ng 36x24 (l).pdf; ATT00001.txt
Subject:
Glenn - Sorry for the delay in providing additional information on the acreage of PSR zone district in the BM PUD as you
requested.
I have attached a map provided by SGM that demonstrates all zone distr¡cts within the PUD and the associated acreage
of each. PSR makes up 1,203 acres which is 39% of the PUD total acreage of 3,069 acres, far in excess of the 25Yo as
required by the original approvals.
As far as the required minimums and the confusion regarding the term "open space" or "community open space" this
has been an issue for years. There are many old Exxon exhibits showing different labels for the PSR zoned areas in the
PUD. Atl of which show the labels on the PSR zoned land. There has never been, nor will there ever be, a open space
zone district created, modified or emilinated. This confusion is once again made more so in some calculation tables used
in the 2008 rezoning effort. Much of what some residents perceive to be "community open space" are areas between
neighborhoods, hillsides along the golf course, the golf course itself, land under schools and the activity center, and land
that which the water/sewer treatment plant sits on. I recall similar discussions at the 2O08 rezoning of the core area
parcels where we used the PSR calculations to satisff the minimums as required through the rezoning effort.
Am happy to discuss further at the upcoming meeting if needed.
Regards,
Eric
1
Fram:
Subject:
*ate:
TÜ:
n.-.,L¿t ,
Glenn Hartmann g hartmann@garf ieid -county.cûtn
RE: "Common Open Space"
May 7, 2919 at 1:45:15 PM
Eric Schmela esch rnela €lbattl ementnl*$ð. cütll
Claire Dalby cdalby@garfield-county.cont, Sheryl Bower
sbower@ garf ie lcl -county.com
Hi Eric: Per our discussions, the information on the Parachute Annexation is as
follows: The John Lyons Amendment to remove property from the PUD reflects that
5 Parcels were annexed into the Town of Parachute that were within the Battlement
Mesa PUD. Those five parcels totaled 48.125 acres. This would result in a 48.125
acre reduction in the overall acreage of the PUD. The Application further represents
that they were all zoned PSR so that would also reduce the PSR acreage by 48.125
acres. The Lyons Application is currently being scheduled for July with the Planning
Commission and BOCC so it is not yet finalized but still in process. Please call Claire
or myself, if we need to discuss this further. Thanks. Glenn.
Glenn Hartmann, Principal Planner
Garfield County Community Development
97O-945-1377 x1570
g ha rtma n n @-ga rf ield -cou ntv.com
3obq - qg 3ozla.
lZo3 \t \5t
3A ,23-Á ?SR êenårz urcÈrÉ ePutr
\\s5 \o': \* Qþn¿ess 6"
\ols ÞÉR
35,€/- ÞáK
qæ€fËc
Ð
May 8, 2019
subject: Ëãttleu eü. rüeqa rup 3q rt"Çqltu'e. l\mend me nti\ppl iq+iiq¡ !
To wit : BMSA Letter on W.221
BMSA Boad Members and Mr. RiPPY,
I would suggest that this letter be rescinded in its entirety. The BMSA
Board nor Delegates did not pass this action in a meetings vote, neither in
February, March, nor Apr¡l meetings. The final plan was not thoroughly
described beyond the initial certified letter sent by Mr. Schmela's
Batlement Mesa Land lnvestments Company to residents affected. This
lack of definitive information was carried to inaccurate descriptions being
presented to community members at the Annual Meeting.
Moreover, the Colorado Sunshine act was violated by two Board members
meeting in private and discussing the amendment and support by the said
letter to be written. This letter does not represent an established þoard
action, but does, by letterhead and signature, imply board support and
action.
I believe that the above actions, while well intended and on short time
schedule, were made in such a manner that it would leave the Board open
to legal action by the residents we represent. However, might be possible
to colrect by acknowledgement of mistaken procedure and correction by
rescinding.
Besides, the improper procedure, the argument could be made that any
such change violates the implied contract that has been in place from the
very grantiñg of the PUD that would make this a community that would be
Oeúetoped with these areas intact and subject to covenant rules' The
BMSA undertook overall maintenance of weeding, mowing , trails, signage,
and litter pick-up wíth this understanding. The letter, even "asked" for
cessation of such planned activi$ when "annexed" if the amendment were
approved.
Exhibit 31
,&å"ServÍce Association
AT"T'Í-E Þ6 E F{T- Td E g"A.
Yry-ryryt
BATTLEMENT MESA SERVICE ASSOCIATION
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIR.ECTORS
February 19,2019
&ppRtwffi$
3- rq- lT
Present:
Absent Board Members:
Laurel Koning
Bob Aninglon
John Shepherd
John Kelier
B¡ad Gates
John Constine
Eric Schmela
Jristin Caseknan
Dale Johnson
Amy Provstgaard
President, Battlement Creek Village
Vice Presiôent, Wiìlow Creek Village
Sec/Treasure¡, Canyon View Village
Director, The Reserve
Director, Fairways
Ðirector, Mesa Ridge Townhomes
Declarant Battlement Mesa Parhers
Direetor, Stone Riúge Yillage
Director, Princeton Management Properties
Director, Tama¡isk Village
DiannaAmett
Brad Hoy
Al Reuter
Robert Gross
Di¡ector, Tamarisk Meadows
Director, Valley View Village
Directo¡, Eagle's Point
Director, RHP Properties
Also Present:Steve Rippy Association Manager
Sherry Loschke Administrative Assistant
communityMembers Presenl James Lindsa¡ Dsbraunderwood, chuck Hall
OlrylfERS OPEN FORUM- Mary Lee Morlang presented a request of support to the Boa¡d for the upcoming
Battle on the Mesa special event sponsored by the Parachuteßattlement Mesa Park and Recreation District.
The Board aseed to consider the request later in the meeting under New Business. Debbie Underwood
introduced herself and mentioned that she is a delegate candidate for fhe Director Monurnent Creek delegate
position which is currently vacant.
CÄLL TO ORDER- Director Koning called the meeting to order at 9:07 AM
DISCLOSURE On' CONTLIC"I- None
Q{roRtrM
A quorum was established for the reguiar meeting.
IflRBy \ryYNN-GAR},IELD COIINTY AIL & GAS LIAISON- ¡\d¡. Kirby lV¡æn rcported that the¡e was
one odor report last month and it was taken cæe of right away. He also reported that the URSA "A" pad
(located near the BMMD wastewater facility) was recently approved by the COGCC.
Page I of3
Çhe Coloraãa []remn
401 Arroyo Drive . Battlement Mesa, Colorado 81635
pvowez 97O.7BS-g43? eex: g7A.285.9631 sna¡ru: BMsA@BattlementMesaColorado.com wEB: wwwBattlementMesaColorado-com
çIff *u
ìæ¡Ë
A"T'TLHMHS{T MggA
Service Association
IYEIV BUSIFüSS- The Annusl BMSA Meeting is set for April I 1 , 201 9, box lunch will be served at 6:00 PM
and the meeting will start around 7:00 PM.
A motion by Director and seconded by Director Schmela to approve a day care at 103 Hawthome
proving the license and the insurance are obtained and provided to the BMSA. The motion passed unanimously.
A motion by Decla¡ant Schmela and seconded by Director hovastgaard to epprove a donation of $300.00 to the
Battle on the Mesa 5K Run or Walk being held on Saturday, Apnl27,2019 beginning at 9:00 a.m. at the Grand
Valley Recreation Center.
A donation request frorn the KSUN radio station was c,onsidered. The board tabled the discussion until the
March meeting to review the amount donated to KSUN in 2018.
UNRESOLI¿ED/WORKING ITEMS-
OLD BUSINF-SS-None
OTHER BUSINESS- None
AIIJOURNMENT- The meeting adjoumed at 10:45 am.
Page 3 of3
$he CaloraÅo Ðrearn
4Ol Arroyo Drive Battlement Mesa, Colorado 81615
rHo¡,¡e¡ 970.285.9432 r¡x: 979.285.9631 e¡¡arr; BM5A@BattlementMesaColorado.com weã: www.BattlementMesaColorado.com
ATTLEMENT MESA
February 28, 2019
Garfield County Community Oevelopment
Glenn Hartrnann
lo8 8rh street
Suite 401
Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601
Dear Mr. Hartmann:
On February 19, 2019 Mr. Schmela presented proposed zone text amendment language and maps to
our Battlement Mesa Service Association Eoard of D¡rectors. We were shown his proposed text
language to allow for Agricultural uses inside the PUD. We were made aware that hemp would be a crop
to be grown along with other crops at any given point. Based on what we were shown, we ôre
support¡ve and comfortable with hls revised definition excluding certain impactful uses and more
importantly, we have no obiection to the amendment with the additlonal language that removes this
use once the property is annexed into the Batllement Mesa ServlCe Association'
Regards,
Service Association
'fltur'Lu( /4nurr1
[aurel Koning
BMSA Board President
fbe Colnrado Dream
401 Arroyo Drivc Battlement Me¡a, Colorado 81615
rùr{ñxùr g70.2g5.g412 ¡¡r¿ g70.2g5.g6Jl ¿r¿rru¡ BMSA@0attlcmentMesacotorado.com w¡¡r www.BattlementMesacolorado'com
4-/ú-lq
Present:
Absent Board Members:
BATTLEMENT MESA SERVICE ASSOCIATTON
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
M¿rch 19,2t19
Laurel Koning
Bob Arrington
John Shepherd
John Keller
Brad Gates
DiannaArnetf
Ëric Schmela
Justin Caselman
Dale Johnson
Amy Provstgaard
Samuel Stervart
Brad Hoy
Al Reuær
Robert Gross
Steve Rippy
SherryLoschke
President, Battlement Creek Village
Vice President, Wülow Creek Village
Sec/Treasurer, Canyon View Village
Director, The Reserye
Director, Fairways
Director, Tarnarisk Meadows
Declarant" BaÊlement Mesa Parhers
Director, Stone Ridge Village
Director, Princeton Management Properties
Director, Tamarisk Village
Director, Monument Creek Village
Director, Valley View Village
Director, Eagle's Point
Director, RFIP Properties
Association Ilfæager
Administrative Assistant
Also Present:
Cornmgnity Members Present KarenDr¡ncan, DebraUnderwood, Chuck Hall, Keith Sheppleman
OWIIERS OPEN FORUM- KarenDuncan-27 PinyonPlace, Monunent Creek Village
Ms. Duncan stated that she had atte¡ded tbe previousBMSA board mesting but the sfarting time listed on the
agenda was 1i:00 AM instead of 9:00 AM r¡¿hich did not allow her to participate because the meeting had
already concluded when she arrived at 11:00 AM
L{s. Duncan requested tbat the covenant compliance letter she drafted for Monumeut Creek homeowne¡s' be
mailed out. She stated that the letter was provided to Steve Rippy and Director Laurel t(sning in January and
she would like for it to be mailed.
Ms. Duncan stated that no covenant report was provided in Dæember, 2018 fherefore she believes there should
be no payment for covenant enforcement fo¡ that month.
Ms. Duncan requested cla¡ification on a shed in the back yard of 59 Pinyon Place as she believes it needs to be
painted due to its condition.
Ms. Duncan st¿ted she would like to discuss the number of ca¡s in Monument Creek Village tåat have expired
license plates as it related to covenant parking violations.
Ms. Duncan comme,lrted that she would like to see the actual contract of BMSA contractors posted on the
BMSA website rather tban just a summary of the conüact
Ms. Duncan stat€d thaf she would like to see the vines hanging on the fences aloog Monument Trail removed as
she feels they are damaging the fences"
Page 1 of3
r'-î-1 l'¡t ? T-\
'.t_ llc La L0rãß0 llrclrrn
4Ol Arroyo Dríve BattlÊment Mesa, Colorado 81635
paoruE:970.285.9432 r¡x: 97A.285.9631 em¡¡r: BMSA@BattlementMesaColorado.com wEË: www.SatflementMesaColorado.com
Checkout I TracFone V/ireless Page 1 of6
F
rRACFÜH- It was also t'nìlrti.dn€d
Effisffirtä.Ä'l'.i"ton
that Mr. Robert McCurdy is recommended to take Mr. Don Mumma's place on the Oil &
"*-,Ç+f,$erl{{li,4pF*,. ç¡ ¡ r: r {
Parks & Open Space & Trails Committee- No Report
Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado- There wül be a March 20,2A1,9 meeting and Amy
Provastguaard will attend.
Energr.A.dvisory Board- Director Arrington reported that Teresa Wagerman the Finance Ðirector of Gar6eld
Counted made a presentation at the EAB to show how the energy iadustry impacts the county financial
revenues coming in and the revenues &re an essenfial part of their budget, the energy industry impacts more than
87a/o of theb budget.
Manager Report- See attached written report.
Declarant Report- None
FIEW BUSINESS- A newsletter in Spanish was discussed and the publisher of the present newsletter said this
could be done at no additional cost. There will be an April Newsletter in Spanish as well.
It was moved by Director Provstgaard a¿d seconded by Director Stewart to sponsor at the Gold Level the
Kiwanis Golf Tournamen! for $500.00. The motionpassed unanimously
It was moved by Director Gates and secanded by Director Shepherd to donate $300.00 to KSTIN Radio station.
The post cards should go out around the first of Ap¡il announcing the Annual Meeting.
UNRESOLVED/WORKING ITEMS- None
OLD BUSINESS- None
OTHER BUSI¡IESS- The board of directors discussed with Ms. Karen Duncan the items she had brought up
during the Owners Ope,n Forum. Ms. Duncm orpressed æncems about the number of vehicles parked on the
street inher neighborhood and she believed those vehicles were in violation of the pmking restriction as several
were not moved in months and several others had expired license plates. Mr. Rippy commented that some
letters had already been sent ¿nd in some instances covenant enforcement ha'd to fack down and confim
ownership of the vehicles as wellas confirm the length oftime vehicles were parked. Mt.Rippy fr¡rther
commented that Ponderosa Circle and other steets in Monument Creek Village have a very large number of
vehicles parked on tbe sheet which is permitted under the covenantt so it is difñcult to determine, when driving
the streets, whether a vehicle has not been moved for a period of time unless there is something about the
vehicle that stands out. M¡. Rippy stated that covenant enforcement is not in the habit of writing a violation on
a vehicle specifically for an expired license plate unless it is deteûtrined tlat the vehicle is either inoperable or
abandoned based upoa the fact the vehicle has not been moved for a sienificant period of time.
Page 3 of4
Çlte Colcrada llrsffi#
401 Arroyo Drive . Battlement Mesa, Colorado 81635
FHoHÉr g7O,285.9432 raxt 97O.785.9631 E¡¡¿ru: BMSA@BattlernentMesaColorado.com wee: www'Battlem€ntMesaColorado.com
Residential, Central Area Residential, Neighborhood Center, Office Park, or Business
Center) if approved.
Garco Zoning
Public Lands
Rural
Resource Lanclc
ù cnnre rcial/üeneral
Planned Unil Deve lopment
i]l lncotooraterl City otTov¡n
Figure 4: Gorfield CountY Zoning
As discussed above, Planned Unit Developments differ from typical zon¡ng regulations in
terms of allowed densities, uses and overall goals of development. The Battlement Mesa
pUD was specifically created for residential development and the uses accessory and
complementary to it and therefore should not be viewed through the same lens as
development within the Rural, Residential-Suburban or Resource Lands zoning of overall
Garfield County. Agriculture is a necessary use within Garfield County but unfortunately
can be accompanied by air quality impacts, noise impacts, odor impacts and related
nuisance impacts. With this in consideration, it is crucial that additional regulations are in
7
lnterstste 70
I
iÍ
-iì ì:,.l.
Town of
Eattlement
Mess PUD
USTS.
E ârth slrr Ge r.' gf aF¡tcs
lG¡i ân¿ th-ó
'I
Æfm,sÈ,RR'NfM13I',Ê6t,aa8tL{-çÅtoRm=iÉLTÆRSEGrophic Scole0 750 r50C 30c0lnFeet:I"=]500'8.M8,- mtAL t2ü.4 ÆnM-LWWW-f1 *-*www-fl7 n-n*w-rcrÆ¡¡¿¡r¡¿EffiltJæ-mMW-øTÆWZAæÆ-wMm, mÀL2g.QAqEWWffiWFtuúI419@ÀqEæ -e8WffiR-PÍÆ1fi,81AæEÆR O- MlÇ SâWWIC WÊAIDM¿ M bAEtu Wil - TOÍAL 2I.7OACîESBAMESAxiÉ1oP^sçdfrv70ttlement MesaCo[orado
From:j2kstover@yahoo.com
To:Claire Dalby
Subject:[External] Hemp agriculture in battlement mesa
Date:Thursday, May 9, 2019 7:33:13 PM
We were given this email regarding the hemp agriculture in battlement mesa.
Unfortunately, we have been unable to attend any meetings. My husband and I reside in monument
creek village in battlement mesa and want to make it very clear that we are very much against this.
Feel free to contact us with any questions.
Thank you for your time,
Kelly and Josh Stover
Exhibit 32
From:Eric Schmela
To:Claire Dalby; Glenn Hartmann
Cc:Sheryl Bower
Subject:[External] Your email invitation
Date:Thursday, May 9, 2019 7:06:26 PM
Claire and Glenn - Thank you both for your email this morning following up on last night’s Planning Commission
Meeting. More importantly, thank you for the invitation to meet and further discuss my application in advance of the
BOCC Meeting on May 20.
The drawings I left with you at today’s meeting represent where I left off last night in my discussion with the
Planning Commission and further incorporates some good comments submitted by both the public in attendance as
well as individual board members.
The interaction that the three of us had today was representative of what this application needed and deserved all
along. Further, I believe that from our time today, that a better product will most certainly emerge for presentation at
the BOCC Meeting.
As discussed, I remain available to you both for any additional requests you may have for information related to this
application.
Thank you both once again.
Regards,
Eric
**************************
Eric Schmela
970.379.7943
eric@schmela.com
Exhibit 33
From:Eric Schmela
To:Claire Dalby
Cc:Eric Schmela
Subject:[External] Revised Agriculture Map 51319.pdf
Date:Monday, May 13, 2019 11:43:35 AM
Attachments:Revised Agriculture Map 51319.pdf
ATT00001.htm
Claire - Please find the attached PDF map with all revisions.
As we have discussed, please find the attached map per your request. This map is reflective of
my presentation to Planning and Zoning Commission when I said I would be willing to make
the application more clear by:
1) remove the core area parcels based on both public and Commission comments received,
2) remove acreage that is densely populated with pinion juniper wildlife habitat,
3) clearly show the removal of all drainages (green belts) from between neighborhoods.
I believe that with the Zone text amendment language, the areas clearly identified in the map
attached, and the crop specific Hemp 500 foot setback from residential or commercial BMSA
parcels, that the proposed agriculture change is clear and easy to understand.
This represents the communication level that was needed all along. Although it did not happen
early enough to be represented clearly to Planning Commission, I believe this documentation
along with staff comments will paint a clear application for BOCC.
As I have mentioned, I remain available as needed for discussions with staff. I look forward to
your comments and meeting once again on May 20th.
Regards,
Eric
Exhibit 34
Agriculture Areas
Exhibit 35
From:Robert Bjerstedt
To:Claire Dalby
Subject:[External] Battlement Mesa PUD Zoning Amendment
Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:56:29 PM
Good Day Claire,
Could you please include this letter in the exhibit the Commissioners will review on Monday
May, 20.
Garfield County Commissioners,
I am writing to state the position both my wife Cindy and I have regarding the Battlement
Mesa PUD Zoning Amendment. First we both do not think that there is a need to have
agriculture of any kind inside the Battlement Mesa (BM) PUD. Battlement Mesa was
chartered to be a residential community from its inception, and was later promoted as a
retirement community. Battlement Mesa was formed to be a residential living community, a
place for families to set down roots and couples to retire, a place to play and enjoy the wildlife
from the walking trails inside the boundaries of the PUD. There was no allowance for
agriculture because it was not wanted around homes, schools, medical facilities, churches,
parks, playgrounds, assisted living centers, and businesses from those that chartered the land
in the first place. The surrounding lands of Garfield County outside the PUD already offered
plenty of agricultural acreage for a multitude of agricultural activities.
Cindy and I moved to the area in 2015 and specifically picked Battlement Mesa because it was
a residential community as well as a place we could retire once we finished our careers. We
were taken by the beauty of the area as well as the climate and the proximity to many activities
we enjoy. We have quite an investment in our new home and can not afford the potential loss
in property values that may come from this zoning change. We have enough to worry about
with the decline of the oil & gas industry, while it may help, hemp in Battlement Mesa will not
be the savior of the tax revenue shortfall. The last thing we thought we would be dealing with
in our golden years was the stench from hemp plots scattered across the community, there is
simply no logical reason to allow this to occur.
We realize that Battlement Mesa Partners is in business to make money and are sure that Mr.
Schmela would much rather be building homes and fulfilling the long term plan of the
community. We understand that he wants to bring in revenue from land that is sitting idle and
can't be sold for housing at this time. Allowing agriculture in the PUD in any area not under
BMSA control is not logical. We also realize that hemp will likely be a crop planted which is
the reason for so much concern regarding this zoning change.
Exhibit 36
The Planers came up with the Option B which Mr. Schmela did not agree with but had some
merit. I understand that the BOCC can vote to approve this as is or "tweak" it, I would suggest
that if tweaking is likely that the following conditions be considered.
1) That the setback be increased to 1,000 ft. from the property line of any existing home,
town-home, mobile home, business, school, park, recreation center, store, common area, or
boundary of any BMSA property, and no planting within at least 300 ft. of any paved road.
2) That the area south of the river, north of Tamarisk Village (river bottom) be stricken from
hemp cultivation and any agriculture that would include odors that the dominant prevailing
winds would push across the community almost daily. See wind rose study exhibit 9 from
Planning Commission Hearing.
3)The 4 Corners area either be restricted from hemp cultivation or removed from any
agriculture, this would be due to wind patterns as well that would greatly effect the town-
homes and other areas east of those plots, see exhibit 9.
4) No agriculture inside the beltway at all, simply no need for it at all. Mr. Schmela was fine
with that on may 8.
5) No agriculture in the area north of Valley View Village, across from the Apartments, again
due to wind patterns and odor issues. Mr. Schmela was fine with this on May 8 as well.
6) No agriculture north of Morrisania Rd. to buffer the homes in Battlement Creek Village.
These restrictions would leave a large area outside the beltway, away from any current
villages, in the eastern area of the PUD where wind patterns will have much less impact to the
community for idle land to produce revenue.
Perhaps these items could be considered and worked into any "tweaking" you may do on the
Option B plan. of course both Cindy and I still contend that there is no need to amend the
zoning to include agriculture In The Battlement Mesa PUD.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our concerns,
Bob & Cindy Bjerstedt
108 Eagle Ridge Dr.
Battlement Mesa (Parachute) CO. 81635
bbjerstedt@gmail.com
513-310-5747
From:Keith Lammey
To:Claire Dalby
Subject:[External] Battlement Mesa PUD, River View of Area that has been cleared
Date:Friday, May 24, 2019 4:27:01 PM
Claire:
I took these photos today. You can see that Battlement Mesa Company has cleared several acres of land already. This is one of the areas that they have claimed for a long time that they were “just planting an Elk food plot” but it is exactly where they want to grow hemp along the river. If you look closely, you can see where they have piled up a lot of trees that have been removed.
There is another very large area immediately east of East Battlement Parkway that has also been cleared in the last 1 to 2 months. It was mostly sage brush but may have included some cedar trees. It too is where they have claimed that “they were only planning to put in an Elk food plot” but is exactly where they now want to plant hemp.
They haven’t been honest!
Exhibit 38
Keith Lammey
Elk Peaks Consulting Group, Ltd
46 East Ridge, Ste. 100
Battlement Mesa, CO 80635
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ElkPeaksAssociations.com&d=DwICAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=qWPAZRvpSJst_dRbTcQKxPQvA-ezCIaEFVxzmT5NcD0&m=OrVUGCAl3Q07o9EFFQ4jOZpNYowad5j-N6mVJP_zOx8&s=x19vk6N33pTd-T0Fw0kSulmvkDeiXvgohL0P9W6Jqx8&e=
970.285.7482
From:Nathan Humphrey
To:Claire Dalby
Subject:[External] Battlement Mesa are-zoning
Date:Friday, May 31, 2019 5:42:29 PM
I am writing to express as a Battlement Mesa owner that I am not in favor of the re-zoning application presented by
BMC. Please deny this application for a second time once should have been enough.
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit 39
From:Frank Shove
To:Claire Dalby
Subject:[External] I definitely am against the Battlement Mesa Company LLC proposal to grow hemp or farming
operations on the undeveloped property. Thank You.
Date:Monday, June 3, 2019 1:23:18 PM
Frank Shove. 62 Poppy Court, Parachute Colorado. 81635
Exhibit 40
Exhibit 41
From:Leta Terrell
To:Claire Dalby
Subject:[External] Battlement Mesa PUD Test Amendment
Date:Thursday, June 6, 2019 9:03:26 AM
This email is to let you know I am AGAINST the "Battlement Mesa PUD Test Amendment - Permitted
Agricultural Uses in Multiple Zone District" by file No. PUAA-03.19. 8717.
Exhibit 42
From:Penny Roehm
To:Claire Dalby
Subject:[External] Battlement Mesa PUD Amendment
Date:Thursday, June 6, 2019 5:07:25 PM
I am writing to express my objection to the rezoning of property within Battlement Mesa
Company property to Agricultural. I strongly urge our County Commissioners to consider all
of the residents of Battlement Mesa and to deny the application. I believe that the rezoning
proposal, with or without conditions, would negatively affect our property values and value of
undeveloped property on Battlement Mesa.
Sincerely,
Penny Roehm
16 Jessica Lane
Battlement Mesa, CO 81636
Exhibit 43
BCC
BATTLEMENT CONCERNED CITIZENS
June 10, 2019
Garfield County Board of Commissioners
108 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Regarding: Text amendment to rezone part of the Battlement Mesa PUD
(PUD – PUAA-03-19-8717)
Gentlemen:
On behalf of the members of Battlement Concerned Citizens (BCC), I wish
to convey our group’s opposition to the proposal to rezone parts of the
Battlement Mesa PUD for agricultural use.
At our regular meeting on May 23, 2019, there was considerable talk about
the issue. We reviewed and discussed the community meeting with Eric
Schmela, the P&Z hearing of May 8th and the BOCC hearing of May 20th. Of
the fifteen members present, the overwhelming consensus was to oppose
this proposal and they ask that you deny it.
The reasons for this position are as follows:
Battlement Mesa is a residential community and we feel it should
remain that way indefinitely. Residents moved here with that
expectation and wish to see it continue.
The possibility of hemp as an agricultural crop is a concern due to the
likelihood of odors from the crop that are generally experienced as well
as possible chemicals used in growing that crop.
Exhibit 44
The applicant seems unwilling to change the proposal to be more
protective of areas closer to homes.
We feel that the applicant has not presented a consistent proposal that
has been well planned or thought-out, leaving residents with a great
deal of uncertainty.
While we can appreciate that the applicant wishes to find a way to generate
more revenue, we would suggest that another approach be taken. It would
also be appreciated if the applicant would consider finding proposals that
would actually improve our community.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Dave Devanney /s/
Chair, Battlement Concerned Citizens
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION
Please check the appropriate boxes below based upon the notice that was conducted for your public
hearing. In addition, please initial on the blank line next to the statements if they accurately reflect the
described action.
My application required written/mailed notice to adjacent property owners and mineral
owners.
____ Mailed notice was completed on the ______ day of ______________, 20__.
____ All owners of record within a 200 foot radius of the subject parcel were identified as
shown in the Clerk and Recorder’s office at least 15 calendar days prior to sending
notice.
____ All owners of mineral interest in the subject property were identified through records in
the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other means [list] __________________
_______________________________________________________________________.
Please attach proof of certified, return receipt requested mailed notice.
My application required Published notice.
____ Notice was published on the ______ day of ______________, 20__.
Please attach proof of publication in [ ]
My application required Posting of Notice.
____ Notice was posted on the ______ day of ______________, 20__.
____ Notice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adjacent road right of way
generally used by the public.
I testify that the above information is true and accurate.
Name: _____________________________________________
Signature: __________________________________________
Date: _____________________________________________
27th March
1927thMarch
4th April 19
Eric Schmela
5/2/19
Exhibit 1
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
Ad #: 0000399229-01
Customer: SCHMUESER, GORDON, MEYER & ASSOC
Your account number is: 1001330
COUNTY OF GARFIELD
STATE OF COLORADO
I, Samantha Johnston, do solemnly swear that I am
Associate General Manager of the RIFLE CITIZEN
TELEGRAM, that the same weekly newspaper printed, in
whole or in part and published in the County of Garfield,
State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein;
that said newspaper has been published continuously and
uninterruptedly in said County of Garfield for a period of
more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the
first publication of the annexed legal notice or
advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to
the United States mails as a periodical under the
provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any
amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly
newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and
advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State
of Colorado.
RIFLE CITIZEN TELEGRAM
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was
published in the regular and entire issue of every number
of said weekly newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and
that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of
said newspaper dated 4/4/2019 and that the last
publication of said notice was dated 4/4/2019 in the issue
of said newspaper.
In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day,
4/9/2019.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and
for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado this day
4/9/2019.
Samantha Johnston, Associate General Manager
Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public
August 3, 2020My Commission Expires:
From:Eric Schmela
To:Claire Dalby
Cc:Glenn Hartmann; eric@schmela.com
Subject:Fwd: Pictures of public notice signs
Date:Friday, March 29, 2019 9:39:53 AM
All signs posted in your revised locations as of this morning.
Regards,
Eric
**************************
Eric Schmela
970.379.7943
eric@schmela.com
Begin forwarded message:
From: Chris Mahan <cmahan@battlementmesa.com>
Date: March 29, 2019 at 9:05:27 AM MDT
To: Eric Schmela <eschmela@battlementmesa.com>
Cc: Dan Locker <dlocker@battlementmesa.com>
Subject: Pictures of public notice signs
Got them moved. Attached 5 pictures
Respectfully,
Christopher Mahan
Maintenance Supervisor
Battlement Mesa Company