City Council Agenda - 2016 - April 14 - Joint Persigo Meeting (Word Version)

2. Minutes of the Last Persigo Board Meeting on October 22, 2015 Attachment

Peach Hill Property – A request to have properties on the north side of I-70 between 24.5 Road and 25 Road included into the Persigo 201 Sewer Service Boundary. The specific properties being considered are: 758 24 ½ Road, 763 25 Road, 765 25 Road and 773 25 Road. Attachment

At 2:04 p.m., Mayor Phyllis Norris called to order the Joint Persigo meeting between the Grand Junction City Council and the Mesa County Board of County Commissioners at the Grand Junction City Hall Auditorium, 250 North 5th Street, Grand Junction, Colorado. Those in attendance from Mesa County were Chair Pugliese, Commissioner John Justman, Commissioner Scott McInnis, Frank Whidden, County Administrator; J. Patrick Coleman, County Attorney; Pete Baier, Director-Public Works; Kaye Simonson, Senior Planner; Linda Dannenberger, Planning Division Director; Julie Constan, Senior Engineer; and Lori Westermire, Clerk to the Board. Minutes prepared by Lori Westermire.

In attendance from the City of Grand Junction were Mayor Pro Tem Marty Chazen, and Councilmembers Duncan McArthur, Chris Kennedy, and Bennett Boeschenstein. Barbara Traylor Smith and Rick Taggart were absent. Staff from the City of Grand Junction included Tim Moore, Interim City Manager; John Shaver, City Attorney; Greg Lanning, Public Works Director; Bret Guillory, Utility Engineer; Dan Tonello, Wastewater Services Manager; David Thornton, Principal Planner; and Juanita Peterson, Deputy City Clerk.

COMMISSIONER JUSTMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE JUNE 25, 2015 MINUTES AS SENT OUT; COMMISSIONER PUGLIESE SECONDED, MOTION PASSES 2-0. Note: Commissioner McInnis was not present at the time of the vote. The City of Grand Junction minutes for the Joint Persigo meeting were approved by the City Council on August 5, 2015.

Mayor Norris suggested the preparation of a single set of minutes, which would be approved at the next Joint meeting. All Councilmembers and Commissioners agreed that future Joint meetings would have one set of minutes prepared and coordinated by City and County Clerk staff.

A. Requested Inclusion into the Persigo 201 Service Area – Harrison Property

The request is to include 3125 A 1/2 Road in the Persigo 201 Sewer Service Boundary. Kaye Simonson briefed the Board on the request and entered into the record the Project Report and File, the Mesa County Land Development Code, the City Development Code, the Grand Junction Comprehensive Plan, and a PowerPoint Presentation, which is on-file at the offices of the Grand Junction City Clerk and the Mesa County Clerk and Recorder. She discussed the site location, zoning, future land uses, history of sewer service, and existing sewer lines in the area. Staff recommends approval of the request.

Chair Pugliese suggested the attorneys for the City and County consider an administrative process that may require an amendment to the Persigo Agreement. Mayor Norris requested City and County staff and attorneys work together to provide recommendations for amending the Agreement at the next meeting, and Chair Pugliese agreed. John Shaver discussed potential procedural changes to the process, and Councilmembers Chazen and Boeschenstein and Mayor Norris agreed decision-making authority would remain with the Joint Board.

Chair Pugliese entertained a motion on the Harrison property to allow them to put the property 3125 A 1/2 Road to be included in the Persigo 201 Service Boundary; COMMISSIONER JUSTMAN MOVED TO DO THAT; COMMISSIONER PUGLIESE SECONDED, MOTION PASSES. Note: Commissioner McInnis abstained, as he arrived at approximately 2:25 p.m. and was not present during the discussion.

COUNCILMEMBER MARTY CHAZEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR THE HARRISON PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PERSIGO 201 SEWER SERVICE BOUNDARY, THIS IS THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3125 A 1/2 ROAD; COUNCILMEMBER CHRIS KENNEDY SECONDED; MOTION PASSED.

B. Requested Exclusion from the Persigo 201 Service Area – A&G Partnership

This request to exclude 311 31 Road, 3094 C Road, and 3098 C Road from the Persigo 201 Boundary is to accommodate the expansion of an existing gravel operation on 122 additional acres to the west, and to not require the gravel mining operation to operate within two jurisdictions with separate Conditional Use Permits (CUP). Kaye Simonson presented the request to the Board and entered into the record the Project Report and File, the Mesa County Land Development Code, the Grand Junction Development Code, the Grand Junction Comprehensive Plan, and a PowerPoint Presentation, which is on-file at the City and County Clerk's offices. She discussed the site location, historic uses, zoning, and future land uses. Staff recommendation is to remove the parcels from the 201 Boundary.

Ivan Geer, Applicant's representative, provided additional site and project information.

COUNCILMEMBER CHAZEN MOVED TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE THESE PROPERTIES FROM THE PERSIGO 201 SEWER SERVICE BOUNDARY; COUNCILMEMBER KENNEDY SECONDED; MOTION PASSED.

COMMISSIONER MCINNIS MOVED EXCLUSION OF THESE PROPERTIES FROM THE PERSIGO BOUNDARY TRACKING THE MOTION THAT THE CITY JUST PASSED; COMMISSIONER JUSTMAN SECONDED, MOTION PASSED.

4.0 PRESENTATION – RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC. - DRAFT 2016 FINANCIAL PLANNING STUDY, BUDGET, AND RATES

Greg Lanning, Public Works Director, briefed the Joint Board on the study and introduced John Gallagher, Principal Consultant with Raftelis. Mr. Gallagher summarized the findings of the study. Dan Tonello, Bret Guillory, and Greg Lanning provided additional information on the existing sewer system, operating costs, fund balances and projections, and equipment replacement schedules. The Financial Planning Study is on-file at the offices of the Grand Junction City Clerk and the Mesa County Clerk and Recorder.

Mayor Norris requested staff evaluate a plan scenario with a lower rate increase in the first year and to present the findings to each Board. Chair Pugliese requested additional time to review the Study and to meet with City and County staff before making a decision, and the other Commissioners agreed.

Chair Pugliese designated Commissioner Justman as Acting Chair and departed from the meeting at approximately 4:19 p.m.

Mayor Norris requested that the City and County staff review the Persigo Agreement and come back to the Joint Board after the first of the year. All Commissioners and Councilmembers agreed.

With no further business to come before the Persigo Board, Mayor Phyllis Norris adjourned the meeting at 4:25 p.m.

Subject: Peach Hill Property - Requested Inclusion into the Persigo 201 Service Area

Action Requested/Recommendation: Review and consider adjusting the 201 boundary at the April 14, 2016 Persigo Board Meeting.

Presenter(s) Name & Title: Kaye Simonson, Lead Planner, Mesa County

Consider a request to add to the 201 Sewer Service Area Boundary the following properties at:

Project Description: Peach Hill LLC, property owner has made a request to have their property at 763 25 Road, 765 25 Road, 773 25 Road, and 758 24 ½ Road be included in the Persigo 201 Sewer Service Boundary.

The four parcels of land are shown within a red border on the Area Map on the following page.

Background: The property is located within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) with a Future Land Use (FLU) of Residential Medium (RM; 4-8 units per acre). There are existing houses on the parcels at 758 24 ½ Road and 773 25 Road, both currently on septic. The two larger parcels are irrigated crop land. An existing 10-inch sanitary sewer located at the north end of Canyon View Park will need to be extended to serve this property.

The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as one that can be developed at urban densities. The 2010 Comprehensive Plan expanded the Urban Development Boundary to include more of the area north of I-70, including these four Peach Hill parcels. This was to address growth pressures the community was facing as well as plan for the next 25+ years of community growth. Following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the Persigo 201 boundary was not changed to match the Urban Development Boundary. It was anticipated that inclusion into the 201 area would be considered on a property-by-property basis by the Joint City/County Persigo Board. See map below.

The map to the right shows where existing sewer service is provided. A 10-inch sewer line is located south of I-70 at the north end of Canyon View Park, approximately 1,100 feet southwest of this property. There is capacity in the line to accommodate future development of this property. Sewer infrastructure will be required to service the property.

The properties at 763 25 Road, 765 25 Road, 773 25 Road, and 758 24 ½ Road total 45.4 acres in size. Current Mesa County zoning is RSF-E (Residential Single-Family – Estate, minimum lot size of 1 acre). The property was rezoned from AFT in 2007, consistent with the Future Land Use map that was in effect at that time and prior to the 2010 change to the UDB. Other County zoning districts in the area include RSF-R (Residential Single Family – Rural), which is a low-density district intended to be rezoned and developed at urban densities when services become available, and AFT, a rural zoning district. Surrounding city zoning to the south is medium density residential R-8 and to the west Light Commercial C-1.

The property owner wishes to create an urban residential subdivision and will need access to the City and County sewer. They will also request a rezone to a zoning district that is consistent with the Future Land Use (R-4). If the property were not included in the 201 Boundary, the minimum allowable lot size would be 1 acre and each parcel would be served by on-site wastewater treatment systems (septic).

The Grand Junction Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the 3 larger parcels as RM - Residential Medium (residential densities between 4 and 8 units per acre). The property located at 773 25 Road has a Future Land Use of RML - Residential Medium Low (2-4 units per acre). Sewer service is necessary to develop at these densities.

The purpose of this request for inclusion into the 201 area by the property owner is to bring the entire property into the sewer service area and allow for future subdivision development at urban densities.

1. The Comprehensive Plan FLU Map identifies future urban residential densities for this property that will need sanitary sewer service.

The City and County have received nine (9) phone calls. All nine callers from north and east of the proposal have expressed concern and voiced opposition with this proposal.

In November of 2015, we moved to Greystone Estates from Denver, CO. We chose the north side of Grand Junction for our home, as it afforded us a rural environment with facilities close by.
We are in opposition of granting sewer service to the parcels of land between 24.5 and 25 roads to be included in the Persigo Sewer Service area because of the possible density increase in this traditional rural setting. We wish to see this area stay semi rural for years to come.

City planners know the most efficient use of city services, infrastructure, and budget resources is to “in fill” available land sites. Pushing services into established low density housing is a disservice to the people who have chosen the more rural life.

Ed and Judy Butterfield
2502 Greystone Drive
________________________________________________________________

I am writing to request approval of the presage boundary amendment request scheduled for hearing April 14, 2016. As a resident of this area, I support the proposed changes.

I am writing you concerning the April 14th hearing to amend the sewer boundary to the north of I-70 between 24 1/2 Road and 25 Road.

While I am not opposed to developing the land, I would just like to see the zoning stay the way it is now, residential single family estate. My family feels that current zoning is a better fit with the current design of the area. I feel that the next step immediately after the sewer is brought under the interstate is going to be a high density housing subdivision. While I understand the need for additional housing as our valley expands, there are a tremendous amount of new homes already being built and in the planning process in this north area. With the newer subdivision already under construction just north of F 1/4 Road between 24 1/2 and 25 Roads, which I understand will be around 200 homes, and the development of Copper Creek subdivision which is starting infrastructure on another 84 homes or so just north of their current one in the same area.

If this boundary adjustment was made, I am envisioning a busy/blind intersection just over the top of an already narrow and busy bridge on 24 1/2 Road to eventually access the newer high density subdivision.

My family and I live on a parcel of land bordering this proposed change on the northwest side of the described property. We moved out this way to get out of town just a little and in to a more rural setting, while still being close to town to access amenities.

After attending a neighborhood meeting last Tuesday, a large number of residents showed up to express their concerns as well. This seems to be the same consensus from everyone I have talked to out our way. Even with very little notice and a small amount of time to prepare, we will try to get a tremendous amount of support as shown by residents AGAINST this boundary adjustment to the public hearing.

Again, I support the development of the parcels of land, I would just like to see the zoning stay the way it is.

I would ask you to consider a NO vote on expanding the existing sewer boundary on April 14th.

Sincerely,

Ryan Reimer
772 24 1/2 Road

After our phone conversation the other day concerning the proposed 201 sewer boundary adjustment between 24.5 Rd. and 25 Rd. north of I –70, I spoke with my neighbor to the north, Nick Flanagan. Nick pointed out that all properties north of I-70 on 25 Rd. are much larger than what will be proposed for the subject property seeking sewer service. My lots (April 1, LLC) are 4 acres total for two residences. Nick’s lot is 1.5 acres. The properties to the north of us are all 1 acre or larger, to my knowledge. Accordingly, both Nick and I oppose the sewer extension, which will precede a request to plat and develop very small lots (1/3 acre) on the parcel which is the subject of the sewer extension request. the lots would be out of character with the existing neighborhood and would probably devalue the same.

On March 29 staff met with three (3) members of the surrounding neighborhood in a meeting at City Hall. Discussion included background information on the City/County Comprehensive Plan, the Persigo 201 boundary and previous changes to that boundary, and land use potential for the Peach Hill property. They represented many in the neighborhood and plan to be at the public hearing. They are not in favor of this property being developed with urban densities, but would like to see it remain as residential estate.

On April 4^th, Staff met with a resident of Quail Run who opposes moving the 201 boundary to accommodate Urban densities on the Peach Hill property. Urban densities are not appropriate for this neighborhood.

Two letters were received by the City of Grand Junction and Mesa County, both from the same party. They are attached.