HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 Resolution 2008-109■Ill h g7,,1rJI,IWI 14!,I4h,l.. r ,5M,44h 1,11111111
Reeept ion#: 756896
10/07/2000 11:10:47 Al Jean plberico
1 of 4 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doo Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss
County of Garfield )
At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado,
held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs on,
Monday, the g'" day of September A.D. 2008, there were present:
John Martin , Commissioner Chairman
Larry McCown Commissioner
Tresi Houpt , Commissioner
Carol Dahl a en Deputy County Attomey
Jean Alberico , Clerk of the Board
Ed Green County Manager
when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit:
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-109
A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE FOR A
CONTRACTOR'S YARD FOR A PROPERTY OWNED BY HANK AND KAMRON
KRACHT DESCRIBED AS TRACT 12 OF MORRISSIANA MESA RANCH LOCATED
AT 0643 COUNTY ROAD 337, GARFIELD COUNTY
PARCEL NO. 2407-034-00-027
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, received a
Special Use Permit (SUP) request for a "Contractor's Yard" submitted by Hank and Kamron Kracht
to operate a water hauling business using four 80 bbl water trucks on their property located at 0643
County Road 337; and
WHERERAS, the subject property is zoned ARRD where such use is permitted as a Special
Use and defined in Section 2.02.1555 of the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended as the
following:
The use of land for the purpose of storing machinery, equipment and supplies for an
individual business that provides services to clients through the use of machinery,
equipment or supplies. Such use may include office and repair facilities.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners opened a public hearing on the 8th day of
September, 2008 upon the question of whether the above-described SUP should be granted or
denied, during which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express
1
1I11KFUfiM,14I,147,Nihit% 14t1iHI,1111111
Receptlon8: 756896
10/07/2008 11:10:47 AM Jean Rlberlco
2 or 4 Rea Fee:S0.00 Doo Fee:0.00 GRRFIELD COUNTY CO
their opinions regarding the issuance of said SUP; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners closed the public hearing on the 5's day of
September, 2008 to make a final decision; and
WHEREAS, the Board on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the
aforementioned hearing, has made the following determination of fact as listed below:
1. Proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting before the Board
of County Commissioners.
2. The meeting 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 that meeting.
3. The above stated and other reasons, the proposed special use permit has been determined to
be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and
welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
4. The application has met the requirements of Special Use (Sections 5:03 and 9:03) the
Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County, Colorado, that a Special Use Permit for a Contractor's Yard is hereby approved subject to
compliance with all of the following specific conditions:
1. That all representation made by the Applicant in the application and as testimony in the
public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners shall be conditions of approval,
unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners.
2. Volume and sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth for residential
neighborhoods in the Colorado Revised State Statute 25-12-103, and any repair and
maintenance activity requiring the use of equipment that will generate noise, odors or glare
beyond the property boundaries will be conducted within a building, or outdoors during the
hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Mon. -Fri.
3. No vehicles to be serviced beyond reasonable maintenance may be stored on site.
4. Storage of flammable material shall be conducted so as to meet all applicable regulations
utilizing the practices identified in the Stormwater Management Plan, meet all local,
County, State and Federal regulations and comply with CRS 30-20-105.
5. No more than 420 gallons of used oil may accumulate in a six -month's time period, and no
accumulation shall be greater than that at any time. That accumulation must be stored in a
labeled container that meets the requirements set forth in all local, State, County and
2
11111 .1117,FiliMil'NI t41i _ hi 11111
Reception#: 756696
10/07/2688 11:1B:47 AM Jean Alberico
3 of 4 Rec Fee:SO.00 Doo Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
Federal regulations for the proper storage of used oil and other chemicals. The containers
are then to be stored inside a properly sized safety vault that serves as a containment basin
and meet any required containment and spill management requirements set forth by
Federal, *State, and County and local regulation to prevent spills onto the property and
beyond.
6. Periodic mitigation measures to address fugitive dust shall be performed to maintain the
driveway at an acceptable level, no Less than once a year.
7. Emission of smoke and particulate matter: Every use shall be operated so as to comply
with all Federal, State and County air quality laws, regulations;
8. Emission of heat, glare, radiation and fumes: every use shall be so operated that it does not
emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of
adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases,
aircraft waming signals, reflective painting of storage tanks, or other such operations which
may be required by law as safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from
this provision;
9. The Applicant shall prepare and submit a plan that uses Best Management Practices for the
purpose of storage of flammable, explosive solids or gases, or other hazardous materials in
accordance with the national, state and local fire codes and written
recommendations/comments from the appropriate local protection district regarding
compliance with the appropriate codes. This plan shall be submitted to the Building and
Planning Department for approval prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit;
10. Any repair and maintenance activity requiring the use of equipment that will generate
noise, odors or glare beyond the property boundaries will be conducted within a building or
outdoors during the hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Mon. -Fri.
11. Any lighting of storage area shall be pointed downward and inward to the property center
and shaded to prevent direct reflection on adjacent property.
12. The Applicant shall place a stop sign at the intersection of the driveway and Cr. 337. The
stop sign and installation shall be as required in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices) and be installed and inspected by the Road and Bridge Department prior
to issuance of a Special Use Permit;
13. The Special Use Permit awarded herein shall only be an approval for the property so long
as the property is owned by Hank and Kamran Kracht. Once the property is sold, the
Special Use Permit shall become null and void and shall not transfer to new ownership.
14. The Applicant shall plant 10 —12 evergreen trees along the southwest comer of the parking
3
1111 W.nrialiViti,{J k d.1.W.14141'A HITT
Recepticnp: 756B95
10/07/2008 11:10:47 RMI Jean Albert=
4 of 4 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
area for the purpose of screening the vehicles associated with this Contractor's Yard. The
trees shall be planted prior to May 2009.
6iti
Dated this day of S2i. v tAsc. A.D. 20 DS .
ATTEST:
GARFIELD e TY BOARD OF
COMMIS GARFIELD COUNTY,
Upon motion duly made and seconded the foreg pted by the
following vote:
COMMISSIONER CHAIR JOHN F. MARTIN
COMMISSIONER LARRY L. MCCOWN
COMMISSIONER TR$SI HOUPT
Aye
, Aye
, Nay
STATE OF COLORADO
)ss
County of Garfield
County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of
County Commissioners, in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the annexed
and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County
Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County,
at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D. 20 .
County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners
4
9-08-2008
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD.
APPLICANTS ARE HANK AND KAMRON KRACHT — FRED JARMAN
Fred Jarman, Hank and Kamron Kracht and Walter Brown were present.
Deborah determined that the noticing requirements were accurate and timely and advised the Board they were
entitled to proceed.
David McConanghy, 420 7th Street, Glenwood Springs, states that the application, as they read it, includes a private
access easement to get to and from this property to County Road 337. The copies of the notice, that he has seen,
included no legal description of the private access easement. It crosses at lease 3 other parcels; the owners of those
parcels are not listed in the application. In fact two of them have submitted letters of protest to the application.
Without some description of that legal private driveway. an indication of whose property all this truck traffic will be
going on, the notice is defective.
Commissioner Houpt asked Debbie if there was anything listed on the notice and Chairman Martin stated in the
application it does say there is a private drive shared by three.
Deborah reviewed the notice and it includes information under the practical description, Deborah read the notice, it
does not include a description of the private easement itself; but it does make reference to it.
Commissioner Houpt asked Mr. McConanghy if it was his concern that it goes through or over those other
properties to access, they would have to go through those properties.
David McConanghy stated he has a map that shows it.
Hank stated they have an easement down that road and the other easements go across his property too.
Commissioner Houpt asked to see the map.
Commissioner McCown stated he is confused; before we start taking evidence...
Chairman Martin stated we need to see if we are going to open public hearing first.
Commissioner McCown stated he would like a 5 minute executive session for some legal advice and that is in a
form of a motion.
Commissioner Houpt — Second.
In favor: Houpt — aye McCown — aye Martin - aye
Chairman Martin asked for a motion to come out of executive session.
Commissioner Houpt — So moved.
Commissioner McCown — Second.
In favor: Houpt— aye McCown — aye Martin - aye
Commissioner McCown stated there is no flaw in notice; let us proceed.
Commissioner Houpt agreed. — Second.
In favor: Houpt — aye McCown — aye Martin - aye
Chairman Martin swore in the speakers.
Fred entered the following exhibits: Exhibit A — Mail Receipts ; Exhibit B - Proof of Publication; Exhibit C —
Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978 as amended; Exhibit D — Special Use Permit Application; Exhibit E -
Staff Report; Exhibit F - Letter in Opposition from Bart and Lynne turner dated July 7, 2008; Exhibit G — Petition in
Favor of the SUP signed by 23 Neighbors dated July 10, 2008; Exhibit H — Letter in Opposition from Becky Warner
dated September 3, 2009; Exhibit I — Letter in Opposition from Mary Anderson dated September 3, 2008; Exhibit J
— A cover letter with Signatures, Morrisania Mesa Residents and Nearby Residents Letter of Concern and
Opposition to the Kracht Land use Application dated July 24, 2008, received in Fred's office today September 8,
2008 and Exhibit K — Letter written by Mary Watson and John Seybold dated September 7, 2008.
Chairman Martin entered Exhibits A — K into the record.
Fred Jarman explained:
REQUEST
The Applicant requests the Board of County Commissioners (the Board) approve a Special Use Permit (SUP)
allowing a "Contractor's Yard" on a parcel zoned Agricultural / Residential / Rural Density (ARRD). Contractor's
Yards are contemplated in this Zone district as a Special Use (§3.02.03) and defined in the Zoning Resolution in
Section 2.02.1555 as the following:
The use of land for the purpose of storing machinery, equipment and supplies for an individual business provides
services to clients through the use of machinery, equipment or supplies. Such use may include office and repair
facilities.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hank and Kamron Kracht (pronounced Kraft) own a 9.88 -acre tract on Morrisiana Mesa which has been improved
by a single-family dwelling, shop / barn building, Ag. barn, and where the bulk of the property is presently in active
agricultural operations (hay -field production / pasturing horses). The Krachts have operated a water hauling
business for the last two years at this location which basically consists of operating four small (80 barrel) water
trucks used in the oil / gas field hauling water for dust control for various operations. The drivers (up to 8
employees) come to the property early in the morning, leave their personal vehicles and take the water trucks and
retum at the end of the day leaving the trucks parked at the property. (From May to September, two of the trucks
stay up in the Piceance Creek area. From October to April, two trucks are parked in the shop/ barn.) The Krachts do
minimal maintenance (oil change/ lube) at the shop but have the trucks primarily maintained at manufacturer /
dealers staying within the terms of the warranty. The Krachts propose to replace their existing (65' x 50') shop /
barn with a slightly larger (80' x 50') building in the same general footprint to house the shop, increase storage, and
provide two bays for parking and working on the water trucks.
The property is accessed from County Road 337 by a privately maintained, gravel -surfaced private driveway which
is shared by three properties. The application must satisfy the requirements set forth in Section 5.03, and 5.03.07 and
5.03.08. The property is served by a permitted well and ISDS. The water used for the business is not obtained from
the property. The well (augmented by a West Divide Water Conservancy Contract) and ditch shares provide
adequate legal and physical water to the residence and agricultural activities and is properly augmented to do so. The
Krachts state that they occasionally wash their trucks on site. Originally, the Krachts proposed a bathroom in the
new shop / barn but it would have required a new augmentation contract which was significantly costly. The existing
structure does not have a bathroom and they have since deleted that request from this application. Staff fords that
there is no need for the bathroom or additional ISDS. Staff does suggest the Board require that washing of the
vehicles occur at a location permitted for that water use as it does not appear the well permit and augmentation plan
allow for that use. The truck trips generated can be characterized by 2 employees (drivers) employees coming in the
morning to pick up their two water trucks and returning at the end of the day. At most, if a]1 four trucks are at the
property, then 4 employees drive in and out in the AM and in and out in the PM for a maximum of 16 one-way trips
per day. Public access to the property is provided by CR 337 which terminates and then a private drive picks up that
provides access to the property which is also shared by two other properties. Staff is unaware of any legal document
that dictates the terms of the use of the shared driveway; except to say, the Krachts have explained that they provide
much of the annual maintenance and dust control. The Application contained a report by JR Engineering which
concludes that the shared driveway and parking area are adequate to handle the proposed use and that impact to
adjacent property owners appears to be minimal to none based on the distance all of the homes are from the common
driveway. Staff also referred a similar application with much fewer trips to the County Road and Bridge Department
which provided the following comments that are germane to this application, but were requirements of the neighbor,
Jabs:
Garfield County Road & Bridge has no objections to this application with the following comments
• Cr. 337 is a narrow gravel road with residents close to the road and their quality of life needs to be taken into
consideration with the addition of truck traffic on Cr. 337
• A stop sign shall be placed at the intersection of the driveway and Cr. 337. The stop sign and installation shall
be as required in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices)
• Any vehicle exceeding Garfield County oversize/overweight limit shall have an oversize/overweight permit
issued by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department.
Staff fords that no additional improvements to CR 337 or the shared driveway are necessary with the exception of
general dust control and annual maintenance already being performed on the shared driveway.
The established neighborhood character is primarily defined as 10 -acre small fanning tracts with residences. Much
of the surrounding properties are in active hay -production with horse pasturing. The subject property can be
described in the same manner where the Krachts farm the bulk of their 10 -acres but also operate a minimal water
hauling business,
The property is extremely well kept, well designed and organized. It would appear, if the 2 to 4 "H & K" trucks
were not parked on the property, one would not know that there was any business operating from the property. There
is no signage, no adverse lighting, employees are limited to picking up and dropping off the 2 to 4 water trucks,
there is no outdoor storage of any kind on the property. This use operates more like a "home occupation" than a
typical Contractor's Yard, The business use does not include any outdoor storage of "equipment." The trucks are
the only component of this operation which is not screened. From the site visit, Staff concludes that there is no need
to screen the trucks on the property as they are fairly secluded from view from most, if not all residences, in the area.
(Staff will provide a PowerPoint presentation with photos that will show the general character of the area and the
lack of visual impact to neighboring properties in the area. As the trucks are parked now, they are not visible at all
from the public right-of-way (CR 337 or CR301). More specifically, they cannot be seen from the north, south or
east as they are blocked by topography and the Kracht's residence and shop / barn. Nonetheless, the Krachts have
committed to planting 10 — 12 evergreen trees along the south side of the barn and parking area to better screen the
trucks. Staff believes this is well intended, will add value to their property, and will effectively screen the vehicles
from most viewpoints. Lastly, the minima] trips generated by these trucks are less impacting than some of the
agricultural activities that are a use-by-right in the same zone district. Staff finds that this use will not detract from
the established neighborhood character. There is little or no run-off or water use associated with the vehicle repair
and maintenance activity, as washing the vehicles is not permitted and there are no employees to require additional
sanitary facilities. Staff recommends periodic treatment of the gravel driveway to reduce dust emissions. The
proposed use is required to do maintenance inside and the only noise is from the 2 to 4 vehicles leaving and
returning to the property. The residential / agricultural nature of the neighborhood and adjacent uses would allow for
a daytime dbA of 55 (7 am to 7 pm) and 50 dbA at night (7 pm to 7 am). Noise level may exceed the residential
level of 55 daytime by no more than 10 db(A) not to exceed 15 minutes in any one-hour period. Noise generated by
the proposed use will need to be demonstrated to be within the parameters for the existing residential neighborhood
and shall be required to comply with State Statute 25-12-103. The used oil from this use will be collected on-site
then taken to a location legally able to handle waste oil. Wildlife is more apt to utilize the open pasture area
surrounding the property because there is little human activity there, and alfalfa fields are attractive to ungulates.
The use is centered in and adjacent to the shop building, so there would be little disturbance to wildlife. Any native
vegetation has long since been removed by agricultural operations of the ranch from which this tract was created.
Staff recomtnends that the applicant control noxious weeds and minimize disturbance. The truck trips generated can
be characterized by 2 employees (drivers) employees coming in the morning to pick up their two water trucks and
returning at the end of the day. At most, if all four trucks are at the property, then 4 employees drive in and out in
the AM and in and out in the PM for a maximum of 16 one-way trips per day. Public access to the property is
provided by CR 337 which terminates and then a private drive picks up that provides access to the property which is
also shared by two other properties. Staff is unaware of any legal document that dictates the terms of the use of the
shared driveway; except to say, the Krachts have explained that they provide much of the annual maintenance and
dust control. The Application contained a report by JR Engineering which concludes that the shared driveway and
parking area are adequate to handle the proposed use and that impact to adjacent property owners appears to be
minimal to none based on the distance all of the homes are from the common driveway. Staff also referred a similar
application with much fewer trips to the County Road and Bridge Department which provided the following
comments that are germane to this application, but were requirements of the neighbor, Jabs: The parking of 4 trucks
and the proposed shop / bam constituting a Contractor's Yard area is adequately separated from the adjacent parcels.
More than that, it is well buffered from all residential structures in the area. The operation of a Contractor's Yard is
not expected to impact adjacent uses.
Because the use on-site is limited to minor maintenance, limited storage of components and equipment that is
adequately screened and enclosed, and the use is proposed to be administrated by conditions set forth by the BOCC
in the SUP, staff feels that no additional security or permits are necessary.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Special Use Permit allowing a "Contractor's Yard" with the following
conditions:
1. That all representation made by the Applicant in the application and as testimony in the public hearing
before the Board of County Commissioners shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by
the Board of County Commissioners.
2. Volume and sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth for residential neighborhoods in
the Colorado Revised State Statute 25-12-103, and any repair and maintenance activity requiring the use
of equipment that will generate noise, odors or glare beyond the property boundaries will be conducted
within a building, or outdoors during the hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Mon.-Fri.
3. No vehicles to be serviced beyond reasonable maintenance may be stored on site.
4. The Applicant shall prepare and submit a Stormwater Management Plan utilizing Best Management
Practices, and shall implement the plan in conduct of this permit.
5. Storage of flammable material shall be conducted so as to meet all applicable regulations utilizing the
practices identified in the Stormwater Management Plan, meet all local, County, State and Federal
regulations and comply with CRS 30-20-105.
6. No more than 420 gallons of used oil may accumulate in a six-month's time period, and no accumulation
shall be greater than that at any time. That accumulation must be stored in a labeled container that meets
the requirements set forth in all local, State, County and Federal regulations for the proper storage of
used oil and other chemicals. The containers are then to be stored inside a properly sized safety vault that
serves as a containment basin and meet any required containment and spill management requirements set
forth by Federal, State, and County and local regulation to prevent spills onto the property and beyond.
7. The applicant must have fire safety plan in place to safeguard persons on or near the property. These
measures shall include the safety to animals and wildlife. The plan shall be reviewed to the satisfaction of
the fire protection service provider.
8. Periodic mitigation measures to address fugitive dust shall be performed to maintain the driveway at an
acceptable level, no less than once a year.
9. Emission of smoke and particulate matter: Every use shall be operated so as to comply with all Federal,
State and County air quality laws, regulations;
10. Emission of heat, glare, radiation and fumes: every use shall be so operated that it does not emit heat,
glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or
which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signals, reflective
painting of storage tanks, or other such operations which may be required by law as safety or air
pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision;
11. Storage of flammable or explosive solids or gases shall be in accordance with accepted standards and
laws and shall comply with the national, state and local fire codes and written
recommendations/comments from the appropriate local protection district regarding compliance with the
appropriate codes;
12. Any repair and maintenance activity requiring the use of equipment that will generate noise, odors or
glare beyond the property boundaries will be conducted within a building or outdoors during the hours of
8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Mon.-Fri.
13. Any lighting of storage area shall be pointed downward and inward to the property center and shaded to
prevent direct reflection on adjacent property.
Commissioner McCown asked Fred on number 4 would a containment plan for hazardous material, wrapped in with
number 11 address your concerns more than a storm water management plan would address?
Fred said he thought it would work. Fred showed the slide again to show how many feet the Kracht's house is from
other residents.
Walter Brown stated the conditions listed they concur with and are ready to comply; except for one instance no
water is filled at the site; trucks are taken into Parachute to fill them. The trucks come back empty. Also 6 months
out of the year, two trucks aren't on the property at all. Hank was called upon to fill his truck from his irrigation
ditch to put out a fire. The Kracht's have been maintaining the road as far as dust, plowing etc. He stated he
understand there are a lot of people here in favor of the application, some that aren't. There was a petition filed this
morning which is against the application and they understand the concerns as to the developments going on in
Parachute and other areas.
Chaimian Martin asked Mr. Brown if there a written or recorded shared use agreement on the private drive.
Walter stated not that he has found.
Chairman Martin asked how long it has been in existence.
Hank Kracht stated it was a big ranch and they subdivided it into 10 acre parcels about 12 — 13 years ago.
Chairman Martin stated but there is no recorded shared use agreement that you know of.
Hank said not that he knows of but he does know that Williams has an easement down that road, they have a well
• pad over there. On each side of our property there are well pads.
Chairman Martin asked who did they have that easement with.
Hank said it had to have been Post Ranch; the well pads were drilled before he and his wife moved there.
Chairman Martin stated it would appear on your deed or the purchase of that property. At this time Chairman
Martin stated they would call on the public, as the applicant you have a right to respond or not. We hope you will
reserve your answers until the end. Chairman Martin asked Jean to call from the list.
Karl Napier wanted to mention that Hanks trucks were the first on location for the fire. Mr. Napier owns a piece of
property near Hank and he doesn't see any problems with what he does. He stated he never knew of any covenants,
that is why he bought the property. He stated Hank's property is clean, you don't see his trucks, you don't hear
them, they don't run thejake brakes up and down the roads.
Chairman Martin asked Karl if he shared the driveway and Karl stated no, he is two roads over from Hank.
Bill Olsary stated he would like to concur; when he bought his land on Morrisania Mesa, he was given no covenants
as to what you could do with your land. It is his belief that the subdivision is one of the oldest subdivisions in
Colorado. He is trying to figure out, in his own mind; whether the interest in this case; which has created a problem
in our neighborhood, neighbors against neighbors; whether it is relevant to operating a business. He went into great
detail about the history of Morrisania Mesa and its development for agricultural uses. He is hoping the question will
be answered as to what the concern of the neighborhood is over this issue.
Scott Overall just wanted to say that he lives two roads over; he also bought his property with no covenants and
doesn't see any problems with the permit.
Jason Jabs stated he lives just below Hank and sees the road traffic every day. I see it as just another vehicle coming
in and out of the driveway.
Nate Schaffer stated he has been a resident for about 25 years and have seen a lot of changes. His dad lives on 337
Road. He has never seen a problem; Hank's trucks drive slow; they water the road and he doesn't see a problem
with what they are doing.
David Tonder stated he was just here to observe.
Mary Ann Tonder said she is with him to keep him in line.
Jack Castle stated he is the neighbor where the road first splits, at the curve and he shares the drive with Hank and
Kamron. He has know them for 10 years and he thinks if everybody is as good a neighbor as Hank and Kamron the
world would be a better place. Jack also wanted to thank John for personally taking care of his issue last Friday.
Nancy Alderson Cooley state she and her husband own two properties, one in Silt and one up on Morrisania Mesa as
well. I would personally love to have their water trucks next to me in Silt. With the threat of fires every where,
gosh, who wouldn't want to have these great people next to them. She has come to know Hank and Kamron quite a
bit over the last couple of years and whenever you are at their place it's clean, the place looks great and they take
pride in what they have. They are always, from what I have seen and experienced from other people as well, more
than willing to share what they have with others and that includes their water truck business as well. She highly
supports their business.
Dori Kivett stated she doesn't live there and she is a close and personal friend of Hank and Kamron. The amount of
time she has spent there; when the trucks are there; you don't even see them. They come in, they do a shift change
and they are gone. Its is a glorified parking lot for a shift change and she supports them.
David McConanghy stated that some of the neighbors asked him to give you a list of legal reason why you should
deny this. He stated he will let the neighbors speak for themselves as to why they are opposed to this particular
application. But, he stated in general it is a feeling that the character of the neighbor is generally shifting from one
primarily of agricultural and residential to more commercial. Given that you just recently approved one contractors
yard; here comes the next one. How many more are there if you approve enough special uses, if everybody becomes
special pretty soon nobody is ag. He gave Fred his power point and he presented. There is no proof of legal access;
the staff report on pages 3 and 4 acknowledges that no one seems to be aware of any legal document that dictates the
terms of the use of the shared driveway. What we have is a private easement that crosses at least three, maybe four
other tracts. Historically if this easement in this area was created at the tum of the century, you can be sure what
access meant back then was residential. He thinks the owners of any of those tracts, some of whom have opposed
the application. can certainly argue this would be an expansion of access use into commercial activities; which is not
allowed. Either way he feels that is the applicant's burden to prove that they have access for commercial truck
traffic on this private easement and they haven't done it. No one debates they have a right to access their house; but
there is no actual proof that they even have that right in the application. He showed everyone a map and talked
about the tracts. This was from a recorded document that was referenced in the site plan that the applicant
submitted. Ms. Warner owns tract 23 and she submitted a letter opposing the application. Tract 11 is owned by the
Turners and they also submitted a letter opposing. What you don't have is proof that you have an access easement
that allows commercial truck traffic; what you do have is two owners of the underlying land who don't seem to want
that commercial truck traffic. The real point is why they don't want commercial truck traffic; because this is
generally and gradually eroding the character of this neighborhood. Fred mentioned that the industrial performance
standards may be more of a guide than a hard and fast rule; not sure he necessarily agrees with that. When this use
was added as a special use to the ARRD zone it didn't specifically say one way or the other; your industrial
performance standards do prohibit storage of "heavy equipment" in a platted subdivision. There is no exception for
heavy equipment in a contractor storage yard. It may have been created before the County had subdivision
regulations; but it is a subdivision, it is 10-acre parcels and it is shown on a plat. The purpose to that is to ensure
that you don't add contractor yards in the middle of residential areas. The same rational applies here; we have a
residential, agricultural subdivision and we are adding a new use that would change the character. It also happens to
be adjacent to the contractors yard you approved a month or two ago on tract 6, which is the Jabs property. What
your code says, at Section 5.03.11, is that you have the power to deny a special use where a lack of separation will
injure the established character of neighborhood. Again what you have done is taken, or what you will be doing is
taking a residential, agricultural area and approving two contractors' yards right next to each other. It is turning this
into a little industrial zone and he thinks that is what the neighbors would like to avoid. He showed Tract 6 which
was the Jabs property.
Bruce G. Brynildson said he is a rather new resident; he has lived there for 3 years. The reason he purchased on
Morrisania Mesa was because of the ARRD planning. This business of special use permits and contractors yards
was news to me the last time he was at the BOCC in July. He shared with the Board the idea where the camel sticks
his nose in the tent; if you don't stop the process pretty soon the whole camel is in the tent and you're out. The idea
is at what point do we issue special use permits for contractor's yards where we completely change the area and it's
character. He has a copy of the Morrisania Ranch sales brochure; dated between 1910 and 1922. There was a letter
of reference in it as to why people should buy up there. It also described that this land company has in fact and does
in fact offer financing on 10 -acre parcels. It also talks about these parcels growing large quantities of, potatoes,
berries, fruit trees etc. He is making these statements because he believes this is a subdivision; an old subdivision
and it did adhere to the requirements of the law in 1910. If you go to the assessors office you will find that the
document that recorded the plat. number 39511. If you read the deeds on all the properties and you go back to the
plat map that David just showed you; the title or description of each of the lots is based upon those tract numbers. If
you put al] that together it seems we have a subdivision; be it an old subdivision. If he understood the rules. "under
subdivision: he got off of the intemet, it states; "subdivisions recorded prior to the effective date of these
regulations, which is 1984, shall be governed by the appropriate regulations enforced at the time of the subdivision
was created". He doesn't know what the rules were 1910 when this document was recorded; but he is sure whatever
regulations were in place in that time, were in fact met. Otherwise they wouldn't have accepted it and created this
recorded document, 39511. If that is the case and you go back to this highlighed place where it talks about heavy
equipment being stored in a platted subdivision, this is what we see taking place here, which tells him that the
people who created those rules and regulations recognize that heavy equipment should not be stored in ARRD zoned
areas. Simple as that. If you tum left on 337 Road and this permit is approved; what we have at the end of that
private drive is a mini industrial complex.
Chairman Martin stated the rules and regulations are totally different than we have now since 1977 under zoning and
subdivision that was adopted in '84. We would have to go back and take a look and that would be the acceptance of
the Board of County Commissioners, and any kind of rules and regulations they would oppose on that. Chairman
Martin stated they were struggling with that as well.
Bruce said in the presentation when they come to platted subdivision, no; he is taking issue to that. It seems it is in
fact a platted subdivision, and if so this sort of activity; parking heavy equipment ovemight is disallowed.
Chairman Martin said that is the determination we are being asked to make.
Bruce said he has to believe that whatever was required they adhered to.
Chairman Martin said he explained what was required and that was what they draw it up, record it and then they sell
property and there was no approval within the Board of County Commissioners.
Bruce said the plat map; apparently all the legal descriptions used today to describe the properties do in fact reflect
what was drawn up back in 1910. It seems to be applicable to today.
Shirley Brynildson said she was just observing.
Ray Sacca said he moved to Morrisania about 9 years ago. The primary reason for buying the land was because it
was ARRD. He wanted to have a garden, raise a little hay and do my thing when I retired. He opposes the zoning
change.
Chairman Martin explained it is not a zoning change it is a special use.
Carol Sacca said she moved to what she considered a pristine area. She doesn't doubt the character of these people
or how beautiful they keep their property. She is only worried that they already have one special use permit; this is
the second one. We know there are other people operating business up there that will be here fairly soon to ask you
for those same things. She doesn't know when special doesn't become special anymore and when does it stop.
Kevin Whelan stated he lives on County Road 338. Nothing to add other than we love the area and I'm sure all our
neighbors do. We just want to keep it as is and thank you for your consideration.
John Broderick stated he lives at the old Nimes place. He stated nothing against the applicants on this but he thinks
there is more important information that needs to be relayed to you and it has been just basically been touched on.
Morrisania was platted in 1898, the plat map he has in Garfield County shows it was adopted in 1910. He stated to
Commissioner Martin, in relationship to the present, this has come in front of the Garfield County commission when
Wayne Rothgary wanted a subdivision request. Morrisania Mesa residents came to the Commission, showed the
platted map, showed they had been involved in the comprehensive planning process and that Mon-isania Mesa
should be adopted as a bonefided subdivision and he thinks our records will show that it was. Rothgary probably
came forward in 1996 or 1997 and this issue was handled before the Board. He hopes the record reflects that your
commission has acted and Morrisana was a subdivision and should be treated as so. There are some issues they
talked about, however they are asking for a special use permit for an industrial level development. Now you have to
decide whether you are going to permit that on the Mesa. He thinks what the Board is hearing from the people is
that you should be permitted in areas that the County planned that for. That reflects going back to the County
Master Plan. When the residents of this Mesa, myself included were involved in the master plan we stepped
forward and said that Morrisania Mesa has a character that lends itself to small parcels for agricultural development
to foster the historic agriculture that has been so important to Garfield County. He thinks the same issue resonates
now. He wanted to note a few things; in the background of the comprehensive plan, it said it was going to guide and
accomplish and coordinate a harmonious development of the relevant turf in Garfield County in accordance with the
present and future needs and the resources that best promote the general welfare. That is what's important not
whether this should be allowed, but what best promotes the general welfare on the Mesa in relationship to the
comprehensive plan you have adopted. He also pointed out in the zoning regulations you talk about your general
provisions. They are to promote health, safety, and welfare to lessen road congestion, protect the tax base, and to
foster the states agriculture. All of these things, and he is not sure if you allow a special use permit like this, you are
actually holding to the general provisions that you put forth in your land use applications. Within thos you actually
have some criteria to help you determine whether you should allow a special use permit. Is the use appropriate to
the genera] environmental character? What is the general environmental character of Morrisania; it has been 10 -acre
parcels used for agricultural and small business. Is such use, does it not create more hazards; an issue of the truck
traffic, whether is it minimal or not and maybe Hank and Kamron specific isn't a problem, but again if there is more
and more special use permits on Morrisania Mesa the truck traffic will increase, the noise will increase, the issue and
safety for the children will go down. The other thing you have to look at is does it create effective or offensive
noise, dust, smoke, glare etc., and he would say yes. Is that what you want on Morrisania Mesa; it's not what he
wants. Finally it states, is such use compatible to the uses existing and permitted already. He states it is not. The
existing uses on Morrisania Mesa are agricultural. He is suggesting the Board looks at the criteria that is available to
you under 5.03.09. This special use permit would be denied. In closing he recommends to the Board they deny this
permit under 5.03,11 saying you have the ability to deny a special use pennit if it impacts the traffic nature, if it
negatively impacts safety or if it is injurious to the established character of the neighborhood or zone or district.
Jane Hines Broderick, 3758 County Road 301. She stated she thought Hank and Kamron have been fabulous
members of the community and again this is her feeling about their application. A lot of us are shell shocked by the
amount of increased truck traffic and associated impacts associated with natural gas drilling. A lot of us have done
well with increased activity and they are happy for people when times are good. On the other hand she had two
neighbors, one moved to Grand Junction; Toby LaBogne who was very successful in the water hauling business in
Parachute. Never once did he propose, or impose, the idea that he would park his vehicles, at the end of the day or
change shifts, on his property across 301 Road from where she and John live. Adjacent to Toby's property is Rick
and Michelle McCurdy. Rick has recently started to haul water for the industry and he owns six trucks now. He
leases a commercial lot else where; not on Morrisania to park his trucks. She believes he does that because he loves
Morrisania for the reason she loves Morrisania and out of respect for his neighbors. She believes when you live on
301 Road; which is now being paved, when you live on an adjacent road they are dusty and Hank and Kamron are
agreeable to do dust mitigation. She has a child with asthma and a friend, Charlotte White who has asthma from all
the truck traffic. As a general courtesy to your neighbors who expect a standard of living and enjoyment on a Mesa
that has been around since 1910 with the general overall purpose of providing fruit and agricultural products; this is
a big change for those of use who are shell shocked by the growing industry. We also don't want to see the tragedy
of the commons here. We don't want every special use permit to be permitted just because there is precedent for it;
we want each one to be examined carefully. We want you to hear that so many of the sixty (60) families that live on
Morrisania are opposed to this idea. We hope you will respect that.
Mary Anderson — I agree that Hank and Kamron are great people and the only thine we are protesting is the industry
or contractor yard. Her question to the County Commissioners and perhaps the planning department; when you
approve these contractors yards and they come in and say they are only doing a shift change once a day, or they only
have 4 trucks, then they buy 6 or 8 trucks and they run 24/7; does the County Commissioners know that happens.
I'm asking this about any yard in the County; not just Hank and Katnrons, because it seems that businesses have
taken place within our County that haven't been permitted to be businesses. Does any one check on that, how do we
know?
Chairman Martin stated through the code enforcement officer, complaints and investigations are handled through
planning and zoning, and then it comes to us. Yes, we know there are violations out there and he believes they take
the appropriate action.
Mary Anderson asked if someone gets more trucks, more traffic and.....
Chairman Martin explained they are all subject to review and if there is violation of the special use permit there is a
provision that allows the special use to be removed.
Commissioner Houpt said it is primarily complaint driven.
Mary Anderson said, so the neighbors have to tell on the neighbors to make this work and Commissioner Houpt
stated; practically speaking she thinks it is true. Mary asked another question; when there is a contractor yard and
the trucks are at the property, do they fuel their trucks within the yard space or do they fuel at other areas.
Chairman Martin said it depends on each one. If they are a containment facility and that was one of the
requirements if they have more than so many gallons of fuel, there has to be containment, a permit, safe guards etc.
Fred stated in this application there is no part of the proposal they would fuel on site. Fred wanted to answer one
other question of Mary's; she raised a good point on what is the limit on whether it is 4 or 6 trucks, should the Board
move in favor of what is presented today, it would specifically be only what you are seeing here. If it goes from 4 to
5 for example; then you have zoning violations.
Becky Warner stated she wrote a letter in opposition to the contractor's yard. She has no opposition against Hank
and Kamron; but she feels so very privileged to own property in this area. She owns the property to the south and
north of Hank and Kamron. This is her life investments, her retirement and she chose to live there in order to live in
the country and have her animals. She stated it just hurts to think this is happening. They didn't buy property there
to have industrial uses next door to them. If this gets passed today, she will be right back here when one of her other
neighbors come and want a contractor's yard. This is not the place for contractor's yards; there is plenty of property
in Garfield County that this would fit in a lot better than this farming community.
Rick Hanson also lives on Morrisania and moved up there from Phoenix. He is in the process of building a house
and finding out he's right back in an industrial area. Williams put a well 1,000' from his backdoor and it is not a
good thing and there is nothing he can do about that either. He hopes the Board makes a good decision today.
Bill Olsary wanted to ask a question in terms of the neighborhood; it is relevant to exactly what is it because one is
operating a business to make a portion or their total living in this area on their 10 acres of ground. He stated he was
speaking of Rick. He stated Rick came from Arizona and approached me about signing a petition; he stated to you
Rick, you had dump trucks up here operating and you put a shop in. He stated Rick was operating 2 dump trucks
and he never worried about Mr. Overall here passing by his houses, rattling chains and what have you. There are
other people up here operating businesses too, so are we saying you can't operate this kind of business on 10 acres.
Bruce over here is operating a backhoe business and he has spoke to this issue; he has a backhoe and a dump truck
parked at his house, so what I'm saying, someone has to answer; what are we ruling against.
Rick Hanson wanted to reply; he had one dump truck when he first moved here and wasn't aware of what he wasn't
supposed to be doing. He stated he did build a shop and it is full of antique cars.
Bruce Brynildson wanted to rebut; yes, I own a dump truck, it's a 1950 Studebaker he is restoring. As far as the
backhoe; he lives on a private road and the backhoe is used to maintain the road for snow control etc. He asked Bill,
when you asked me to dig for you, you weren't hesitant about asking me. His question of the Board; on a previous
issue before you, I believe Commissioner McCown, did you put a clause in the previous special use permit, #10 said
something about the permit having a sunset condition. When the property sells the permit goes away?
Commissioner McCown stated he did.
Bruce Brynildson asked if that was a standard thing and Commissioner McCown stated it was strictly up to this
Board. Bruce asked what if we were to request that something like that could be put into this and Commissioner
McCown stated it might happen.
Walt stated they would be happy to have that provision. He stated there has been a lot of animosity expressed here.
This has been going on for 2 — 3 years, there haven't been any complaints and they are keeping it as is. The staff
report is accurate about what could be done there. They are trying to keep everything this way mostly out of respect
for their neighbors.
Deborah Quinn said that she noticed that the subdivision regulations are not part of the record. She wanted to advise
the Board; there isn't a definition of platted subdivision within the zoning regulation. In the subdivision regulations
under Section 220.37 there is a definition of plat which is the only thing that is close to platted subdivision, other
than the definition of subdivision that refers to Colorado law which wasn't in existence when this one was created.
The plat says a map and supporting materials of certain described land prepared in accordance with these regulations
as an instrument for recording real property interest with the County Clerk and Recorder. Other than that there isn't
any other guidance within our regulations on the platted subdivision issue.
Fred wanted to clarify a point that David McMonanghy brought up, which was a statement that Fred made. This is a
special use permit that does not legally have the standards we have used as a guide. Not dissimilar from when you
approved, for example, a kennel as a use. There was a lot of time putting together standards you would use to
regulate a so called kennel. The question as to if this is within a platted subdivision is mute; that standard does not
apply legally to this use.
Commissioner McCown made a motion to close the pubic testimony part of the public hearing.
Commissioner Houpt - Second.
In favor: Houpt — aye McCown — aye Martin — aye
Commissioner McCown — I make a motion we approve the special use pennit for a contractors yard striking no. 4,
incorporated that into no. 11 to read that an appropriate containment plan for any flammables or explosives, solids,
gases, oils etc., must comply with the local fire code. Adding no. 14 to read; adopt the road and bridge concerns
regarding a stop sign at the end of this road. No. 15; the special use permit is valid only as the current ownership of
the property is maintained and no. 17 the vegetative screening that was testified to, be allowed to continue until
May, 2009 for that plan.
Commissioner Houpt stated second for discussion. Certainly after hearing the discussion of the application; but
others can see there are always compelling arguments on both sides. She finds that the evidence illustrating that this
is not within the character of the neighborhood, as it stands with the comprehensive plan is pretty compelling. She
agrees there are certain areas in the County people move into with the understanding or belief that area will be
preserved in the manner in which it was when they purchased their land, and she thinks it is the Boards
responsibility to make sure that we respect that and follow the comprehensive plan as closely as possible. She feels
they did a good job in keeping their business clean; but it would go against what she believes the comprehensive
plan give us as a guide for me to support this particular application today.
Chairman Martin stated he saw the issue definitely dividing a neighborhood and there will be no satisfying anyone.
The physical change in the neighborhood is a garage or actually a large building extending a continuation of 2 trucks
parking in the same spot they have for 2-3 years; making it a non-compliant use. Chairman Martin stated it will be a
compliant use; he doesn't see any change in the actual neighborhood in the last few years. He stated they will make
a determination if it has really changed and they will also make a determination if they will allow the use on an
individual basis.
Commissioner McCown stated if we are talking about the quality of neighborhood; he thinks someone mentioned
that was a large ranch and it was broken up 12 or 15 years ago. As far as Commissioner McCown is concerned, that
is when the quality of the neighborhood changed. He doubts that there is a single person sitting in this room today
making a living off their land selling potatoes and apples down at the farmers market. It is not being used to all of
the "quotations" he has heard today from the sales brochures by the Morrisania Mesa Subdivision, if in fact it is a
subdivision, was to be used for agriculture to promote the livelihood of the folks that homestead that land. There is
not one of you in here that could make a living on the 10 acres up there unless you are growing something
completely illegal. It is not economically feasible these days; we are all here doing exactly what we can, to the best
of our ability, and that is to scratch out a living on this old mother earth. He really hates to see neighbor against
neighbor reactions on these things; nothing is worth that, there goes your quality of life, He can't see this as a
tremendous imposition to everyone; nor can he see the devaluing of the property having looked at what he sees
taking place on the ground up there. That is why he made the motion and he supports it.
Chairman Martin — Call for the question.
In favor: McCown — aye Martin — aye Opposed - Houpt