MESA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

WHITEWATER/KANNAH CREEK PLAN

PUBLIC HEARING -- MAY 13, 1999

MINUTES

The specially scheduled Planning Commission hearing was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairman Tom Benton.

In attendance, representing the Mesa County Planning Commissioner, were: Tom Benton (Chairman), Charlie Nystrom, Mary Fuller, Tom Foster, Jeff Over and Bob Gobbo.

Staff in attendance included Kathleen Sellman, Mesa County Planning and Development Department Director, Keith Fife, Mesa County Long Range Planning Division Director, and Michael Warren, Long Range Planner.

Terri Troutner was present to record the minutes.

There were approximately 42 interested citizens present during the course of the hearing.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

C73-99 DRAFT WHITEWATER/KANNAH CREEK PLAN

STAFF'S PRESENTATION

Keith Fife briefly introduced the item and presented a historical background of its progress through conception, public forums, and the four alternatives which had been formulated. Submitted into the record were the East Rural Planning Area (ERPA) Future Land Use Map and other maps which had been presented at earlier public forums.

Michael Warren referenced the May 13, 1999 Project Review noting the primary changes recommended by the Steering Committee, the Technical Committee and the public at large. He added that none of the maps was expected to stand alone; rather, they were to be used in conjunction with the Plan's goals, policies and recommendations. The current Plan, as proposed, was consistent with the goals and recommendations of the Mesa Countywide Land Use Plan. He further elaborated on recommended Plan changes from the Steering Committee. Submitted into the record were the fifty plus letters received to-date on the Draft Plan.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY

Bud Bradbury (4614 Highway 50, Whitewater) said that his family had lived in the area for over 100 years on a designated "Centennial Ranch.". He read into the record a letter written by Bob Black, a Purdy Mesa resident who was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Black said that the Draft Plan did not reflect the wishes of the Kannah Creek community and if approved, the rural character of the area would be ruined. Ranching and other agricultural operations should be preserved. To that end, only 1 dwelling unit (d.u.) per 35 acres should be allowed in the outlying areas. The Plan should better address fencing, setbacks, ditches and water rights. Mr. Bradbury added that planning commissioners should consider each person's point of view when deliberating on the Plan.

Kathy Stanko (6778 Kannah Creek Road, Whitewater) said that her family originally settled in Colorado in the 1800s. She urged that only low density residential development be allowed. A density of 1 d.u. per 5 acres was too high (not rural) and would force an urban lifestyle onto a rural community. She also spoke in support of allowing only 1 d.u. per 35 acres and leaving agriculturally zoned lands as they were. She opposed density averaging to allow smaller lot sizes. Ms. Stanko requested:

1. adoption of the ERPA Future Land Use Map (contained on p. 41 of the Mesa Countywide Land Use Plan) which reflected 35 acre densities;

2. adoption of the goals, policies and implementation strategies contained within the Draft Plan; and

3. staff to reexamine the design policies and guidelines beginning on p. 29 of the Draft Plan to ensure that they reflected the ERPA map recommendations. Once adjusted, she asked that planning commissioners adopt amended designed policies and guidelines as part of the Plan.

Steve Wood (6790 Reeder Mesa Road, Whitewater) said that he'd lived in the area for the last 11 years. He felt that the majority of those who'd attended the public forums understood what was being proposed. The question, he said, was not how much density change the Whitewater/Kannah Creek community wanted; rather, the question should have been asked whether they'd wanted any change at all. He expressed opposition to Alternative 4, saying that it did not represent the consensus of the community. He suggested that the steering committee, appointed by the County Commissioners, must have had their own agenda contrary to the community's wishes. Mr. Wood agreed with comments made by Ms. Stanko and supported the ERPA Future Land Use Map. He commented that a lot of "haphazard things were going on" in the Whitewater/Kannah Creek area. Mr. Wood also wondered how enforcement of the Plan would be undertaken.

Gary Kelley (7390 Reeder Mesa Road, Whitewater) cautioned against the promotion of urban sprawl. He concurred with comments made by previous speakers and spoke both in support of the ERPA Future Land Use Map and against Alternative 4.

Donna Riddle (2777 Purdy Mesa Road, Whitewater) said that she'd lived in the area for approximately 10 years and used her 37 acres of land for hay production and pastureland. She spoke in favor of maintaining the area's rural character and lifestyle. She felt the Plan was inconsistent with the goals and recommendations of the Countywide Land Use Plan since the Land Use Plan recommended only 1 d.u. per 35 acres. Growth, she said, should be controlled and small acreage developments should be prohibited. She agreed with previous comments that the consensus of the public's wishes had not been incorporated into the Plan.

Cindy Richardson (100 Kannah Creek Road, Kannah Creek) said that she'd lived in the area for over 17 years. She agreed with comments made by previous speakers and felt that the steering committee had failed to consider the wishes of the community. She felt that they had followed their own agenda. Ms. Richardson spoke in favor of Alternative 1 and expressed opposition to Alternative 4. Attractive development should be encouraged. She asked that consideration be given to development of park and recreational facilities.

David Smuin (4221 Purdy Mesa Road, Whitewater) said that he was a native to the area. He concurred with comments made by previous speakers, speaking in opposition to Alternative 4. He also felt that the steering committee had failed to represent the community's wishes and suggested that committee representatives should have been selected by the community's citizenry, not appointed by the County Commissioners. He supported some of the Plan's goals and policies.

Mary Adino (no address given) concurred with comments made by previous speakers and expressed opposition to Alternative 4.

Eric Gertz (509 Red Tail Court, Whitewater) said that he'd lived in the area approximately 9 years. His property (35 acres), had been surrounded by the recently developed Indian Creek Estates. After attending only one public forum, he'd become disillusioned with the process. He said that prior to development of Indian Creek Estates he had approximately 35 antelope grazing on his property regularly. They no longer frequented the area. Mr. Gertz said that wildlife impacts would only increase as the area's density increased. With development of Indian Creek Estates, he said that there were also more instances of dogs running loose and of blowing trash. In addition, he'd seen a substantial increase in his tax assessment. He urged keeping densities outside the city limits to no more than 1 d.u. per 35 acres.

Rob Ferguson (7386 Reeder Mesa Road, Whitewater) owns approximately 40 acres on which he plans to retire. He spoke in support of Alternative 1.

Danel Ferguson (7386 Reeder Mesa Road, Whitewater) expressed her support for the ERAP map and opposition to Alternative 4. She concurred with comments made by previous speakers.

Kathy Haldeman (111 Blair Road, Whitewater) said that she was part of a third generation family living in the area. She'd attended one public forum and also became disillusioned. She felt that those with special subdivision interests had taken control over the forum. She concurred that wildlife impacts were of major concern and said that neighboring dogs often came onto her property to harass her livestock. High density development would ruin the rural character of the area and she spoke in favor of 5 acre parcel minimums. Density averaging, she said, should not be permitted. Open space and trails should be preserved.

Commissioner Gobbo asked if leash laws were enforced. Ms. Haldeman said that having once worked for Animal Control, leash laws were hard to enforce. Dogs were often elusive and hard to catch.

Rod Bonnel (3333 Purdy Mesa Road, Whitewater) said that he was a native to the area and represented his brother, Steve Bonnel, as well. Mr. Bonnel said that only 22 percent of the Whitewater/Kannah Creek area was held in private ownership. He did not feel that continued growth would adversely impact the community, and 5 to 35 acre parcel sizes seemed reasonable. Most of the area, he added, was unsuitable for agricultural production. He spoke in support of Alternative 4 and said that property owners should be able to subdivide if they wanted to. He urged the Planning Commission not to "lock the gate."

Victor Jensen (6250 Kannah Creek Road, Whitewater), owner of 170 acres, said that he both farmed and ranched his property. He spoke in opposition to Alternative 4 and stressed that the rural character of the community needed to be protected. He questioned the rationale behind the steering committee's recommendation for Alternative 4. He also wondered how the Steering Committee had been appointed.

Betty Jo McDonald (4925 Highway 50, Whitewater), owner of 80 acres, expressed concern over wildlife impacts with higher density developments. The steering committee, she said, should have paid closer attention to the community's wishes.

Janet Hyde (1900 Bean Ranch Road, Whitewater) said that her property abutted BLM lands. She said that people already dumped their trash illegally on public lands. Higher densities in the area would only exacerbate the problem. She was concerned over wildlife impacts and concurred that the area's rural character needed to be preserved. Ms. Hyde spoke in favor of Alternative 1 and expressed opposition to Alternative 4.

Rick Weber (Reeder Mesa Road) said that he'd been a resident of the Whitewater area for the last 10 years. He also encouraged preservation of the community's rural lifestyle and spoke in opposition to Alternative 4. He said that 5 acre developments were too dense for the area. As a builder, he offered to change professions if the County were to impose a building moratorium. He also expressed disappointment in steering committee representation. If anything were to pass, he suggested that it be Alternative 1.

Craig Sherwood (75 Reeder Mesa Road, Whitewater) said that he'd been a resident of the area for 3 years. He supported Alternative 1 and expressed opposition to Alternative 4. He concurred with comments made by the majority of previous speakers. Mr. Sherwood wondered if sign allowances (for home based businesses) could be increased from their present 2 square feet to allow more visibility to fast moving traffic on Highway 50.

Debbie Moore (4111 Purdy Mesa Road, Whitewater) said that she'd only lived in the area for 2 months. She said that when she'd purchased her property she'd been given a list of property restrictions due to limited water. She'd taken this to mean that the rest of the community had to live by the same restrictions. Ms. Moore said that there was barely enough water for the community's present residents. Where would new residents obtain their water? She concurred with comments made by the majority of previous speakers.

Mark Miller (3685 Purdy Mesa Road, Whitewater) a custom farmer in the area said that there was no reason to so substantially increase the density of the Whitewater community. The wishes of the area's citizens should have been better considered. Five acre tract sizes were too small and would not support any type of viable agricultural operation. He emphasized that a lot of growth is possible without any future subdivisions due to the large number of parcels of land currently without houses.

Don Lumbardy (2500 Whitewater Creek Road, Whitewater) said that his family had lived in the area since 1963. As a member of the steering committee, he explained that Alternatives 1-3 had initially been presented to the public. The Steering Committee then presented Alternative 4 to the public as the proposed plan without further public discussion. During the last steering committee meeting only four members were present and, Alternative 4 was discussed those members. At that last meeting, he said, only one committee member voted for Alternative 4, yet a letter he'd received in the mail following the meeting stated, "...Several steering committee members suggested that low turnout at the public forums was, in essence, an implied consent of the plan. That is, residents who approved the plan do not show up to voice their support while residents who did oppose the plan did show up to speak against it. The inference of this rationale is that most people support the plan, right or wrong." Mr. Lumbardy said that he found that statement and rationale to be "absolutely appalling." He said that densities proposed with Alternative 4 would allow a population of 17,000 for the Whitewater area.

With regard to the design guidelines, he emphasized that they were guidelines only, subject to change by the Mesa County Planning Commission, and not "set in concrete." As a committee member, he did not feel comfortable giving staff and developers a "blank check." While acknowledging that property rights were precious and should be respected, but it is equally important for people to be responsible in how their rights are properly implemented.

Ed Studebaker (1991 Purdy Mesa Road, Whitewater) said that he'd lived in the area for 28 years and owned 60 acres. He pointed out that generally no one was in favor of Alternative 4. Using the previously mentioned figure of 22 percent of available private property, he said that squeezing 17,000 people into that small an area was asking for trouble. He reaffirmed his opposition to Alternative 4.

Jim Whaley (2211 Divide Road, Whitewater) said that he'd lived in the area for 25 years. He opposed Alternative 4 and said that tract sizes should be 35 acres in size. He disagreed with the findings of the steering committee.

Rosalee Holton (no address given) said that property owners should have the right to subdivide if they needed to or if they wanted to pass on portions of their land to their children. She acknowledged that 35 acre tract sizes were the best alternative and acknowledged that subdivision developers were "in it for the money."

Chairman Benton noted all those who had signed-up to speak tonight had been called forward. He briefly explained options available to property owners to protect the use/zoning of their parcel including group rezones to AF35 and conservation easements. He then invited others to speak who had not sign-up.

Larry Hicks (2998 Reeder Mesa Road, Whitewater), a 20 year resident, spoke in favor of the ERAP map and expressed his opposition to Alternative 4.

Maria Mulder (4343 Reeder Mesa Road, Whitewater) concurred with comments made by the majority of previous speakers.

Jim Holton (no address given), owner of property along Highway 50, said that the area was generally dry and unproductive. He supported Alternative 4 since it gave property owners the chance to subdivide.

Chuck Chapman (7330 Reeder Mesa Road, Whitewater) retired in the area and raises quarter horses "on-top of a mountain." He supported preservation of the community's rural character and lifestyle. Higher density development would bring with it increased traffic and urban problems. He urged 35 acre minimum parcel sizes.

Austin Massey (1600 Reeder Mesa Road, Whitewater), a member of the steering committee, tried explaining how Alternative 4 was formulated. He said that in the committee's review, even projections of a 12,000 person population seemed undesirable and excessive. Alternative 4 was intended to leave things as they were presently (no changes in zoning) and encourage current property owners to downzone their parcels. In doing that (voluntary downzoning), he said, he thought it would send a message to planning staff and commissioners that higher density developments would be out of character and unwelcome. Alternative 4 was unfinished and was apparently misunderstood by the area's citizens. He said the other alternatives considered imply a zone change. He emphasized how zoning will not keep him in the cow business and sometimes ranchers need to be able to sell some land to survive.

John Whiting (100 Whiting Road, Whitewater) said that he'd been a resident of the Whitewater area and in the ranching business for over 40 years. As a fellow steering committee member, he concurred with Mr. Massey's statements. Alternative 1 would be downzoning the area, which he felt was inappropriate and would subject committee members and the County to potential liability. He said that during public forums there had been no consensus for any of the Alternatives. That was why Alternative 4 had been proposed. Mr. Whiting observed that no one to his knowledge voluntarily went in to the Planning Department asking for a rezone to a lesser density. Property rights were "sacred" and property owners should be allowed to subdivide if they so chose.

Oscar Massey (1600 Reeder Mesa Road, Whitewater), a rancher, said that a population of 12,000 to 17,000 people in the Whitewater/Kannah Creek area was "uncomprehendable." He questioned where these projections came from since now there are fewer than 2 people per house in the area.

Mike Haldeman (111 Blair Road, Whitewater) expressed strong opposition to density averaging because it allows incompatibly high density.

Robert Hyde (1900 Bean Ranch Road, Whitewater) stressed the need to protect the area's quality of life and individual homeowner privacy. If not careful, development could easily get "out of hand."

SUMMARY

Chairman Benton thanked citizens for their participation and comments. He announced that the Mesa County Planning Commission will hold a workshop, without public comment, on 3 June 1999 to discuss the input received, then reconvene in July to formally act on the adoption of a plan for the Whitewater/Kannah Creek area. He also announced that written comments would be accepted until the upcoming Mesa County Planning Commission workshop on 3 June 1999, since no public comment will be taken at the continuance of the hearing in July.

A motion to continue the public hearing was requested.

MOTION: (Commissioner Foster) "I make a motion that we continue the item to July 8."

Commissioner Nystrom seconded the motion.

A vote was called and the motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0.

With no further business, the hearing was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________

Mary Fuller, Secretary