The Regular Meeting of the Meeker Town Board was held Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at Town Hall.

CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Loshbaugh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL

All Board members were present with the exception of Trustees Ham and White.

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Mayor Loshbaugh asked for changes to the agenda.  A motion was made by Trustee Mills to accept the agenda as presented.  Second by Trustee Etheridge.  All ayes.  Motion carried.

APPROVAL OF THE PREVIOUS MINUTES

A motion was made by Trustee Thomson to approve the minutes of December 11, 2007 as presented. Second by Trustee Halandras.  All ayes.  Motion carried.  

APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS

A motion was made by Trustee Mills to approve the revised vouchers dated January 8, 2008.  Second by Trustee Etheridge.  All ayes.  Motion carried.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

None

TOWN MANAGER’S REPORTS

The Manager’s report was moved ahead on the agenda prior to the public hearing which was to begin at 7:15 p.m.  Manager Day informed the Board that Schmuesser Gordon Meyer will be hosting a seminar in the Glenwood area, January 25, 2008, titled “The New Energy Economy and How To Succeed In It”.  Day encouraged Board members to attend.

Day also informed the Board that the Colorado Municipal League Legislative Conference will be held in February this year and urged Board members to attend as there are a lot of important legislative issues this year and Governor Ritter as well as most of the legislators will be there.  Day stated it is always good to know what bills are being introduced and what is before the legislators.

Day addressed the Board regarding USGS the 2008 Joint Funding Agreement between them and the Town stating that match money would be provided this year to help fund the temperature gauge for the river.  The total cost is $6,890.00, the Town’s share will be $4,120.00, and USGS will pay $2,770.00.  Day recommended the Board allow Mayor Loshbaugh to sign the agreement.  A motion was made by Trustee Mills authorizing Mayor Loshbaugh to sign the Joint Funding agreement with the USGS.  Second by Trustee Halandras.  All ayes. Motion carried.

NEW BUSINESS

Public Hearings beginning 7:15 p.m. in the following order:

1.                   Consideration of Ordinance 1, Series 2008, concerning petition from Regas K. Halandras and Pegge Marie Halandras “Escondido Annexation” request (complete legal description attached)).  Mayor Loshbaugh opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. stating the purpose of the hearing was for consideration of adopting Ordinance 1, Series 2008, concerning a petition request from Regas K. Halandras and Pegge Marie Halandras to annex approximately 27 acres of land filed as “Escondido Subdivision” adjacent to the Sage Hills Subdivision.  The Mayor called roll, present were Trustees Thomson, Etheridge and Mills; Trustee Halandras excused himself from the Council bench and sat in the audience due to a conflict of interest.  Mayor Loshbaugh explained the public hearing would be a quasi judicial format and anyone speaking from the audience must wait until the appropriate time and should state their name and address for the record.

The applicant’s presentation was given by their representative, Jim Joy, who addressed the items included in the annexation petition request concerning impact on other districts and agencies; contiguity; time line; zoning; occupancy and such stating that he believes the application meets all state statutes.

Attorney Viscardi asked Mr. Joy, for the record, to establish the contiguity of the proposed annexation to the Town boundary.  Mr. Joy replied that the perimeter of the proposed annexation is 7,503.94 feet; the area contiguous to the Town of Meeker is 3,600.71 feet which more than meets the Town’s required 1/6^th perimeter contiguity requirement of 1,250.66 feet.  Viscardi stated that the land is currently not used for agriculture and asked if the owners plan to use it for agricultural purposes in the next five years, Mr. Joy responded that they did not.  Viscardi asked if notification was provided to the mineral interest owners; what method was used for notification and how the list of owners was obtained.  Mr. Joy responded that notice was provided by certified mail and the list was obtained from Rio Blanco County Abstract.

Mr. Joy stated that the applicant had received letters from the County, Town, Qwest, Atmos Energy, and White River Electric stating they would provide utilities.  Joy stated that he had a letter from Meeker Sanitation District, although the applicant is not proposing to be connected to the sanitation district; also included in the application were letters from the school district, fire protection district; other improvement and taxing districts are all listed; receipts from the certified mail sent notifying mineral owners; title commitment; the deed when the owners took title; and the water dedication application from the Town.

Mr. Joy addressed items, from the developer’s view point, regarding the community assessment:  how will the development, the way it is being proposed, affect the Town of Meeker?  Based on the Town’s comprehensive master plan seventy-six percent of the residents believed that growth was important and this is a part of growth, we think that the people believe that we (the Town) needs to grow to prosper and this small, four lot subdivision, would provide a nitch for people of a certain income level.  The Town of Meeker will naturally be impacted, but we feel the impact will be positive and will not only generate more taxes but use tax as well from building homes.  Joy addressed the traffic stating they had figured sixteen day trips, which is far below CDOT’s requirement for an impact study of traffic concerns.  Joy stated that development naturally changes the nature of the ground due to driveways and things that will shed water, the lots are fairly large because we understand the soil characteristics and believe that with only four houses the impact of water runoff will be pretty minimal.  Joy stated there are reports from NRCS which recognize problems with the soils, but they can be overcome and precautions will have to be taken. Joy stated they feel there will be minimum impact to the police protection, fire district and parks; although Joy stated he did receive a letter from ERBM Recreation and Park District, which had not been provided to the Town, stating they have concerns regarding traffic on Sulphur Creek Road but at the same time are pleased to have more people in the area to use their facility.  Impacts on wildlife will not be adversely impacted but homeowners will need to take precautions and realize they live in a rural atmosphere; no one knows what type of jobs will be created by the owners of these lots or what they will do for a living; although the master plan shows growth more easterly than northerly, the property is conducive to growth in that direction and the applicant doesn’t see any conflict as there will only be four homes in the low density subdivision.

Questions and comments from members of the Planning Commission and Board of Trustees:  Planning Commission member, Keith Rholl, stated he would really like to hear what the neighbors have to say on the subject.   Planning Commission Chairman, Gary Hindman, stated that the Planning Commission believed all conditions for annexation of the property have been met and recommended approval of the Annexation Petition request, adding that most of the questions residents have will come during the subdivision process.  Trustee Thomson asked how the annexation will be affected if owners of the mineral rights should decide to explore for oil or gas.  Mr. Joy replied if mineral rights are owned it is your right to protest it, but it doesn’t mean it will stop the process.  Trustee Mills asked if there would be any new roads, with Mr. Joy responding every lot will be accessed by an existing road.  Mayor Loshbaugh emphasized that the purpose of this public hearing was regarding the annexation of the property not the subdivision process where most of these questions will be addressed.

Mayor Loshbaugh opened the hearing for public comment on the annexation.  After several questions from the public regarding items to be answered during the subdivision process, Planner Sheridan explained that the purpose of this hearing was to determine if the Town wants the 27 acres in the Town of Meeker and does it meet our criteria as well as State statute.  The subdivision process will be three public processes; approval of the sketch plan which if the annexation is approved, will be heard later tonight; the preliminary plan and then the final plat, with zoning being the final process all of which will be separate public hearings.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Planner Sheridan gave the staff presentation:  the Petitioners have requested annexation, subdivision and zoning of the property.  Petitioners’ proposal, if annexation is approved by the Town, is to subdivide the 27 acres into 4 lots with the property zoned RR (Rural Residential).  Access to these lots and utilities would be made from existing Town infrastructure located in Sage Hills Subdivision, with the exception of sewer, which the Petitioners are proposing to be provided by individual sewage disposal systems.

The Petitioners are requesting the Town Board approve their petition to annex the area, approximately 27 acres, adjacent to Sage Hills Subdivision, based on the evidence that the property complies with the Colorado State Statute, the Meeker Municipal Code, and the Town of Meeker Comprehensive Plan.

Listed below are excerpts from the Code provisions, Petitioners Community Assessment Report and Comprehensive Plan Report, and related staff’s comments:

Petitioners - Meeker is experiencing a growth swing and this four lot development will fill a need for upper end housing and accommodate that end. 76% of Town residences believe that growth is important and to grow we need subdivisions to that end.  Annexation into the Town of Meeker is currently required for water taps. Septic will be individual tanks with leech fields.

Staff Comment - Meeker is experiencing growth, however, it has not yet been determined by the Board, the type of development to be made on the subject property or if it is a type of development Meeker needs and is consistent with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and the Town’s Code.  Annexation is generally required in order to obtain Town water service, and water is a necessity for the proposed development of the property.  However, it has yet to be determined if individual septic systems are in the best interest of the community and are consistent with the Town’s development regulations and Comp Plan.  Preliminary inquires made to the staff by the public express concerns about seepage from individual septic systems and look favorably toward annexation into the sanitation district.  Concerning Petitioners’ reference to the Comp Plan provision addressing the Town residents’ views on growth, the actual Comp Plan figures are:  41% identified growth as “somewhat important” and 35% identified growth as “very important”.

The economic impact to the municipality of the proposed annexation:

Petitioners - The economic impact to the Town of Meeker should be one of positive effect. Short term revenue, based upon materials for construction, is estimated to be $14,400. No short term negative revenue is anticipated.  Long term municipal revenues are based upon the tax revenue over a five year period and is anticipated to be $22,000.00 (at our current tax rate).  Utilities could generate $4,400.00 annually.

Staff comment - In order to make a comparison of comparable existing developments in Town, we reviewed four single family homes in the Ute Terrace Subdivision (which may be similar to the proposed subdivision).The information concerning Town property tax revenue follows: The Rio Blanco County Treasurer’s office provided information on four properties located in Ute Terrace.  Using an average rate for Town property tax revenue in Ute Terrace, the Town would receive approximately $5,038.00 over a five year period.

The school impact including an estimate of the number of students to be generated by development of the property, capital construction required to educate the students, and proposals to mitigate any negative school impacts:

Petitioners -  If one considers that each dwelling unit will have 3.5 persons per single family lot then 1.5 children per lot equates to six children. This alone should not require any capital construction project nor adverse effects upon the school system. RE-l has been notified by mail as to this development in accordance to subdivision regulations. Refer to that data for further insight.

Staff comment - The school has been contacted by the petitioners and the School District’s letter is in the Petitioners packet.  Town Staff has contacted the District concerning specific inquiries related to issues addressed in the Town’s Subdivision Code (regarding land dedication for school sites) and are awaiting the District’s response.

The impact on the existing transportation system and proposals to mitigate any negative transportation impacts upon the community (arterial and collector street improvements, intersection improvements, intersection signalization, alternative modes of transportation, etc.):

Petitioners -  Each lot owner could have two cars (the national average). This means 16 day trips, which is far below the CDOT minimum point of requiring a traffic study. No additional impacts, based upon the 16 trips have surfaced that expose our streets to detrimental effects thereof.

Staff comment - Based on CDOT’s requirements, access points need to be increased by 20% in order to require a study.  Staff does not believe four single family dwellings would cause a 20% increase, based on the Petitioners’ proposed development plan.

The impact of the proposed development on the existing storm drainage system:

Petitioners - The proposed change from raw ground in its natural state to the construction of four single family residences amount to water increase from house roofs, garage roofs and possibly parking aprons. The increased runoff would be channeled into the existing draw for Lots 2 and 3. Lot 1 would eventually drain onto existing ditches along Sulfur Creek Road.  Lot 4 would eventually drain onto Mountain View Road. Sage Hills Subdivision handles their storm water via usage of curb and gutter, concrete cross pans and paved streets.

Staff comment -At this time, there is no way of determining what a new landowner would or could build, such as accessory buildings, driveways, shops, animal shelters, lawns etc.  This would be speculation on the Petitioners’ part. A storm water report will be required at the preliminary plan stage, as required by the Town Code.     

The impact of the proposed development on the Town Police Department and proposals to mitigate any impact upon the existing police services:

Petitioners - Absolute minimum impact is projected for the Police department with no additional personnel or equipment.

Staff comment - The size of the proposed development might lend itself to the belief that the impact would be an “Absolute minimum”.  But there is likely to be some impact due to this development, especially if this development is part of a future development pattern in the Town, which will, collectively, lead to an impact on the Department, as well as all Town and local government services.   

The impact of the proposed development on the fire protection district and proposals to mitigate any impact upon the existing fire protection services:

Petitioners - Our fire district has been contacted relative to this four lot development by mail as required by subdivision regulations, refer to that correspondence.

Staff comment - The Fire District responded with a letter stating that the proposed area is within their District boundaries. However, until they are able to see the actual proposed plan, they are unable to comment on accessibility, hydrant placement etc.

The impact of the proposed development on the Town park facilities and recreation district facilities and programs:

Petitioners - Usage of Town Parks by an increase of 14 users is negligible. Refer to correspondence from Eastern Rio Blanco Metropolitan Recreation and Park District as to any impact upon their facilities and programs.

Staff comment - Staff was unable to find a letter from the Recreation District in the Petitioner’s packet, therefore, are unable to determine the basis for Petitioners assertion. 

The impact of the proposed development on the environment of the Town:

Petitioners -  No negative impact on Meeker’s environment is anticipated. These are single family residences. No commercial or industrial bi-products are being produced nor have endangered species been identified by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Our local deer herd that likes the Town of Meeker will probably stay roaming from 13th Street to School Street from the White River to this project. All wildlife precautions should be taken as they relate to living in a rural setting. This includes pets, trash, predators, insects and reptiles.

Staff comment- Staff is not aware of any environmental study that has been done in the proposed area to be annexed.   Homes may have a minimal impact on wildlife. However, the type of development has yet to be determined, and the nature and extent of development on each lot, including possible home occupations and extent of construction, will have some impact.  The Petitioners’ geological report, as well as, information gathered by staff address geological concerns.

The short-term and long-term economic development potential for the property (numbers of jobs to be created, sales and use tax generation, property tax generation, utility revenue generation, incentives to be offered, etc):

Petitioners - Refer to the “economic impact to the municipality” above for the increase in the following; sales and use tax increase; property tax; WREA; Meeker Water District; Qwest; Cable TV; Atmos Energy; Meeker Sanitation District (NA).  No crystal ball can tell the number of new jobs created by ownership of these lots.

The compatibility of the proposed development with the street master plan as depicted by the Transportation Map contained in the Town Comprehensive Plan and proposals for mitigating any negative impact:

Petitioners - Escondido will utilize Meeker’s existing street pattern with no new streets within the development. It is entirely compatible with the Comprehensive Plan on traffic flows.

Staff comment - The Meeker Comprehensive Plan did not take into account new development in this northerly portion of Town.

The compatibility of the proposed development with the Town Comprehensive Plan and any plan amendments that may be necessary for the proposed development:

Petitioners - The direction of development of our Comprehensive Master Plan shows growth generally proceeding Easterly around an airport.  Though this growth is northerly it is adjacent to the existing single family residence of Sage Hills Subdivision and south of an existing single family parcel.

Staff comment -  The Comp Plan shows proposed growth east of Sulfur Creek Road and north of the Recreation Center.  However, the single family home (Turner’s) north of the proposed area to be annexed does have Town water service provided by an extra-territorial water agreement, which provides for annexation of that property, when the property is eligible for annexation.  The water tap for this single family home was originally provided by an agreement between the Town and the Dodo’s, the previous property owners, at the time of the development of the Sage Hills and Sanderson Hills Subdivisions, during the 1970’s.

The compatibility of the proposed development with the Title 18, Chapter 1 of this Code and any deviations in setbacks, space requirements, and permitted uses that may be required for the proposed development:

Petitioners - Escondido conforms to all subdivision regulations of the Town of Meeker including an applied for variance for street lot frontage.

Staff comment - Neither the Board nor the staff has, yet, determined if the subdivision conforms to the Meeker Municipal Code. The subdivision sketch plan has not been reviewed and does not contain building envelopes (designation building sites), at this early stage, and there has been no application for the referenced variance, yet.  The variance application is not made until the preliminary plan submittal, as provided by the Town Code.

A review of existing and adjacent land uses, areas of compatibility or conflict, and possible mitigation measures that may be required for the proposed development:

Petitioners - Adjacent uses include the following: West is BLM, East is Sulfur Creek Road, North is a private residence and South is Sage Hills Subdivision. On site are two water storage tanks for the Town of Meeker’s water supply. No conflict is evident.

Staff comment- Staff has not determined the compatibility of the adjacent land and the proposed development. There may be a concern for the Town’s water tank sites and the need to protect/secure them from the public.  Having proposed residential development, open space and a trail adjacent to the tanks may result in potential risks for the Town, which will need to be evaluated.

ESCONDIDO COMP PLAN COMPATIBILITY LETTER – JSC,Inc:

Petitioners - The proposed development of Escondido is compatible with the Town of Meeker's Comprehensive plan. The proposed development is four single family home sites and an area to be dedicated for the use and benefit of the general public.

The comprehensive plan delineates growth North and East of the existing Town boundary. The property falls in the desired growth area and is located in a residential setting, with Sage Hills Subdivision, Sage Hills Re-subdivision and RJP Minor Subdivision adjoining the property to the South. Westerly of the property is a steep hillside belonging to the Bureau of Land Management, North of the property is Turner Minor Subdivision. East of the property is an area that the comprehensive plan indicates as a future Medium Density Single Family area.

Staff comment - These two paragraphs are written by JSC, the Petitioners’ representative.  Based on a code requirement in Annexation Title 18.8 a document was required to show compatibility with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.  (This document is also found in your packet from the petitioners, page39 in the application)  The narrative states that the Town of Meeker’s Comprehensive Plan shows the Town’s desired growth plan north and east of the Town limits.  However, the “Meeker Future Land Use Map” shows medium density growth north of Town, on the east side of Sulfur Creek Rd..  The “Meeker Future Land Use Map” is attached to this memo.

The Turner subdivision is located north of and adjacent to the proposed property to be annexed. Several years ago, the Town permitted the Turners to obtain extra-territorial water, signing an agreement, as noted in paragraph 12 of this memo.  This may lead to an assumption that growth would be desired north of the Sage Hills Subdivision.

Planner Sheridan concluded stating that at their regular meeting on November 26, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended to the Board to approve the annexation, it was also Staff’s recommendation to approve the Escondido annexation of the 27 acre parcel, contingent upon the Board determining that the petition for annexation sufficiently addressed all criteria required by the Colorado State Statutes and the Town Code.

Mayor Loshbaugh opened the hearing to questions from the Board.  Attorney Viscardi, in complying with State statute, asked how many feet the proposed annexation extends to the north with the existing town limits.  Joy replied it was less than three miles. Viscardi clarified that in the applicant’s proposal there is no anticipation for an annexation election because they are 100 percent the property owners.  Mr. Joy replied that was correct.

Mayor Loshbaugh asked for comments or recommendations from the public.  Planning Commission Chairman, Gary Hindman, made the recommendation to move forward with the annexation process in order to get to the issues concerning the subdivision request.

Planner Sheridan stated for the record that letters have been sent to all property owners within 400 feet of the subdivision and all mineral lease owners, they all received a copy of the public notice that was published in the Rio Blanco Herald Times and the annexation was advertised four weeks in a row in the same newspaper. All mailings were done by certified mail, return receipt, except for the last 100 feet.  Annexation requires certified mail, return receipt to property owners within 300 feet; subdivision requires 400 feet, certified registered mail was sent to the 300 feet people, however the same notices went to people within 400 feet as well.

Mayor Loshbaugh asked for any other comments or recommendations from the public.  Hearing none he asked for comments or recommendations from the Board of Trustees and Planning Commission members stating the Board does have the Planning Commission’s recommendation.  Attorney Viscardi requested the packet of documents marked as exhibits be stated for the record.  Planner Sheridan stated Exhibit A is a packet of information from the petitioner along with the maps they submitted; Exhibit B is the Certified Mail return slips; Exhibit C is a copy of the letter staff sent to all property owners within 400 feet along with the newspaper articles, the legal description, and the petition for annexation; Exhibit D is the Publisher’s Affidavit and Proof of Publication; Exhibit E is the annexation petition staff memo; Exhibit F is the future land use map.  Viscardi spoke in respect to Town Staff’s report concerning the memo that was presented by Planner Sheridan addressing the assessment report from the petitioner and requested it also be made a part of the public record, and adopted as part of any action you take with respect to the annexation.

Mr. Joy asked Attorney Viscardi the reason staff’s memo needed to be made part of the record.  Viscardi replied that in reviewing the petitioner’s assessment the information will be made part of the public record as Exhibit A and it includes that assessment, the Town, in reviewing the assessment, has different opinions concerning what the petitioner’s allegations and assertions were in that report.  The Town believes it is necessary historically to have it made part of the record.   Mr. Joy asked “does this report have to be in there, is it State statute or something you want to see.”  Viscardi replied that it is something the Town wants to see.  Mr. Joy commented, for the record, the Community assessment plan is very, very arbitrary.

Mayor Loshbaugh closed the Public Hearing at 8:12 p.m.  Attorney Viscardi stated that prior to the adoption of the ordinance, by State statute, certain findings have to be made by the Town Board in a resolution prior to the ordinance being adopted if the Board were to approve the petition for annexation.

Trustee Thomson made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 1, Series 2008 making findings of fact and conclusions based upon the results of a public hearing held on a Petition of Annexation submitted by Regas K. Halandras and Pegge Marie Halandras.  Second by Trustee Etheridge.  All ayes.  Motion carried.

Trustee Mills made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1, Series 2008 approving the Petition for Annexation submitted by Regas K. Halandras and Pegge Marie Halandras for the annexation of a certain parcel of property to the Town of Meeker.  Second by Trustee Etheridge.  All ayes.  Motion carried.

2.       Joint Board of Trustees and Planning Commission Public Hearing to consider a request from Regas K. Halandras and Pegge Marie Halandras for sketch plan review for Escondido Subdivision. The proposed subdivision contains approximately 27 acres.  Mayor Loshbaugh opened the public hearing at 8:22 p.m.  The applicant’s presentation of the Sketch Plan for Escondido subdivision was made by their representative, Jim Joy who stated four lots were being proposed in this development which is located adjacent to Sage Hills Subdivision.  The applicant’s request also includes the staff’s response as follows:

The property is located adjacent to Sage Hills Subdivision, (North and West) bordered by Coley and Kellie Turner to the north, and BLM to the west, on the back side of the proposed annexation/subdivision.  The applicants have requested annexation, subdivision and zoning of the property.  This request is to subdivide approximately 27 acres into four lots and zone the area RR, (rural residential).  Access to the lots and utilities would come off of existing Town infrastructure located in Sage Hills Subdivision, with the exception sewer, which the applicant is proposing septic systems.  

The applicants are requesting the Town Board and Planning Commission review the subdivision sketch plan to subdivide 27 acres into 4 single family lots.

General Streets Design Standards:

Applicant- There are no new streets proposed with this subdivision

Staff - The applicants are proposing to use existing streets located within the Sage Hills Subdivision for access to each lot. They are also proposing four separate driveways to access each building site.

Streets System Layout, Function and Design:

Applicant -There are no new streets, alleys, private streets, sidewalks proposed.  There are separate, private driveways to each lot.

Lot Configuration:

Applicant- The intent of this subdivision is to create a quality subdivision with desirable building sites with little to no adverse effect upon the neighboring properties or Town of Meeker.

Staff- Points of access to the proposed lots could cause concern for existing property owners in the Sage Hills Subdivision, for example, sight distances and disturbing natural drainage ways. 

A lot shall not be divided by a street, alley, other lot or the corporate limits of the Town:

Applicant- No lots are divided by streets, alleys or the corporate limits of the Town.

Sheridan stated the Town agrees with the applicant.

Wedge shaped lots shall meet the minimum lot requirements of the applicable zoning district, as provided in Title 18 of the code:

Applicant- All lots being proposed will be in accordance with Title 18, for RR zoning.

Staff- At this time, we have not had any public hearings on zoning, however, the applicants are proposing Rural Residential zoning. Lot 4 does not meet the 150 foot lot frontage which is required by Title 18.  If the plan moves forward, a variance application must be submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration at the time of the Preliminary Plan.  The Board’s determination regarding the sketch plan shall not be considered as a predetermination of the Planning Commission’s variance decision.   

Side lot lines shall be at substantially right angles or radial to street lines . . . :

Applicant- Lot lines will be at right angles or radial to street lines. 

Staff- Lot 2 fronts both Silver Sage Rd. and Sage Ridge Rd., therefore, is considered a double frontage lot.   A variance application will be required, which may also designate which street will be used for the access. 

All lots shall front on public streets:

Applicant – All lots front a public street.

Double frontage lots shall not be permitted . . .

Applicant – There are no double frontage lots.

Staff – Lot 2 fronts both Silver Sage Rd. and Sage Ridge Rd., therefore, is considered a double frontage lot.  A variance application will be required, which may also designate which street will be used for the access.

Lot dimensions shall comply with the provisions of Title 18 of this code:

Applicant – Lot dimensions comply with Title 18, for RR zoning.

Staff- As mentioned previously, Lot 4 does not meet the lot frontage requirement of 150’ for the RR Zone district.  A variance will be necessary.

Geologic hazards . . .

Applicant- Refer to the HP Geotech report that was completed last year.  Mr. Joy referred to a soils report from the White River Soil Conservation district which states the subdivision has severe soils for shrink and swell which could cause possible movement of septic systems, realizing some of the problems with soils, it is nothing that can’t be overcome by good engineering practices.  In referring to a letter from the geologist Joy stated they do not expect problems from slope stability if it is properly graded by an engineer.

Staff- The HP Geotech report, addresses hazards; such as, steep slopes, erosion, large boulders, unstable soils, debris flows and floods.  HP Geotech made it very clear that geotechnical engineering studies would be required prior to any sort of disturbance to the land, including grading, driveways, foundations, etc.

Planner Sheridan also reviewed the “Geologic Hazard Investigation” report done for the proposed Sage Hills Subdivision, in 1980.  This report also mentioned the above hazard in addition to the hazard drainage ways impose on the land, such as erosion, the high-velocity movement of cobble and boulders. I also reviewed current soils maps from White River Soil Conservation District (copies were included in the Board’s packets) in which the District’s information raises concerns.  The maps show the majority of the land to be “very limited”, indicating “that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use.  The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures.  Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected”.    The categories supplied to the Town are: vicinity map and letter, septic tank absorption fields, local roads and streets, soils map, shallow excavations, dwellings without basements, and dwellings with basements

Sheridan wanted to clarify for the record that the White River Soil Conservation’s report stated that generally these soils limitations “cannot” be overcome.

Parks, Trails, and Open Space Requirements:

Applicant- The developer is proposing to convey 22% of the total subdivision to Open Space in addition to a non-motorized trail in the form of an easement.

Staff- It has yet to be determined if the Board is willing to accept this proposed open space and trail.  Staff’s concerns include, rock fall/hazardous area, liability for the Town, maintenance of the open space and, construction, vehicle parking and access to the trail.   Staff has brought the open space and trail proposal to the attention of the Recreation District Director. Further discussion will be necessary between the Town and the Recreation District Boards. 

Public parks and Open Space Land Dedication/Fee in Lieu:

Applicant -“As part of the review for a Preliminary plan…”  Though as can be noted on the sketch plan a six acre parcel is being proposed as a dedicated open space.

Staff- Staff recommends that the Recreation District and the Board discuss the possibilities and concerns for these six acres of open space.

Dedication in-Lieu Standards:

Applicant -Dedication for open space is six acres per 12 people, exceeding the 15 acres per 1000 people requirement. 

Future population shall be based on . . .

All calculations are based upon the average of three persons per single family lot.

Dedication; Cash in Lieu; and Appraisal Procedure:

Dedication of a six acre parcel is being proposed by the developer.

Dedication considerations (Open Space).

Dedication considerations are to be determined by the Town.

Land dedicated to the Town shall be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances:

The land to be dedicated to the Town is free and clear of all liens and encumbrances.

All land to be dedicated to the Town shall contain minimum improvements . . .

Staff- This land is not adjacent to a street, however storm drain, sewer and water service are required, according to the code.  This may not be possible due to the topography of the land. 

Common Open Space Requirements:

Applicant- Single Family residential requires 10% dedicated Open Space.  Escondido (residential) is dedicating 22%, plus a non-motorized trail in from of an easement.

School Land Dedication Requirement:

Applicant- School Land Dedication Requirement - We do not believe that this site is a strategic location for future schools.      

Staff- The Town has contacted the school district and is waiting for a response.

Electric and Communications.  Utility rights-of-way shall conform . . .

Applicant -Utility easements shall be provided along all front lot lines and others as required by respective utility companies.  All voltage lines will be constructed underground where feasible.

Staff- A reclamation plan will be required for all utility installations.  In accordance with the Town Code, all utilities shall be underground, just as required in Sage Hills Subdivision.   

Water.  All subdivisions shall connect to the Town’s water system . .

Applicant- Water will be provided by the Town of Meeker        

Staff- The Town did write a letter stating that it would supply water, once annexed and once the water mains are extended at the developer’s expense. The mains must be extended 15 feet past the property line, according to the Town’s Minimum Design Standards. 

Wastewater.  All subdivisions shall connect to the Meeker Sanitation District system . . .

Applicant- Sewer will be individual septic systems in accordance with appropriate State and Local Regulations.  Mr. Joy commented that one of the reasons the lot sizes are large is to accommodate a septic system in consideration of the safety of the residents and the Town of Meeker as well.

Staff- The Town has received inquiries from adjacent property owners regarding individual septic systems.  The Soil Conservation District’s report on septic, notes; “Excessive slope may cause lateral seepage and surfacing of the effluent in down hill slope areas. Some soils are underlain by loose sand and gravel of fractured bedrock at a depth of less than four feet below the distribution lines.  In these soils the absorption field may not adequately filter the effluent, particularly when the system is new. As a result, the ground water may become contaminated.”  Additional investigation may be necessary by a consultant hired by the Town before moving forward with the sketch plan.

The Sanitation District’s letter states, “Mr. Halandras could connect to our sewer mains if he followed all the District’s requirements and rules.  Service would be provided at such a time contingent upon approval by the Board.”   Staff and the Board should strongly consider having the subdivision connect to the Sanitation District.

Sheridan also recommended if a percolation test is required that the Town require two tests before the sketch plan is approved.

Fire hydrants shall be provided in accordance with the Town Construction Standards:

Applicant- Fire Hydrants will be provided (if needed) in accordance with the Town of Meeker construction standards.

Staff- Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with the Town’s Construction Standards and with input from the Fire District.

Street lighting.  The developer shall pay the cost of purchasing and installing all street lighting equipment:

Applicant- Not applicable

Staff- This will be determined in the preliminary plan.  Staff recommends down lighting for dusk to dawn lights if they are to be used, by the individual property owners.

Geologic hazard areas including but not limited to landslides, debris flow, rock fall . . .

Applicant- Refer to the report from HP Geotech. The building site anticipated on each lot does not yield itself to any geologic hazards.  The property falls outside of the 500 year flood plain

Staff- Refer to previous comments regarding geological hazards.

Storm Water Drainage Standards and Plan.

Applicant- Final plat stage.

Staff- The Town’s subdivision code requires the storm water drainage plan in the preliminary plan stage.   Erosion and sediment control plan is required at preliminary plan stage.

Mayor Loshbaugh asked for questions or comments from the Board of Trustees and the Planning Commission.  Trustee Etheridge asked for clarification on the proposed trail.  Mr. Joy replied that the trail was north of the Town’s water tanks and intersects with an existing trail near the top of the mountain that runs to the east and intersects with County Road 11 (Sulphur Creek Road).

Mayor Loshbaugh asked for questions or comments from the Public.  Ron Spencer with White River Electric Association commented that any street lighting, if required by the Town of Meeker, will be provided and paid for by the developer.

Bud Thompson, 1449 Mountain View Road, voiced his concerns about whether or not lot 4 would later be divided into smaller lots and how drainage from that lot would be prevented from flowing into his back yard.  Mr. Thompson also asked the date of the last geological report for the area.  Mayor Loshbaugh responded the most recent geological survey was done in June of 2007.  Mr. Joy, addressing the drainage, explained that the septic system will include a tank and leach fields, will be designed by an engineer and would meet the Town and State standards.

Kevin Amack, 1444 Mountain View Road, asked if it would be possible to connect to the sanitation system.  Mayor Loshbaugh, reading a letter provided by the Meeker Sanitation District, which stated the Sanitation District could or would provide service but it has not been requested by the applicant at this time.  Mr. Amack asked if the Town Board would have the right to require annexation into the Sanitation District.  Attorney Viscardi replied that the staff report does make the recommendation to annex into the Sanitation District.

Coley Turner, adjacent property owner, asked if the Board was aware of the topography of the proposed open space, stating that it was very steep and rocky and in his opinion unusable, Turner also asked who will maintain it.  Attorney Viscardi replied that his questions will be addressed as the application goes through the process, adding that whoever adopts it will have to maintain it.

Peggy Strate, 1421 Mountain View Road, asked where the access to lot 4 would be.  Mr. Joy replied between RJP minor subdivision and lot 3.  Terry Thompson, 1453 Mountain View Road, asked how wide the access is.  Mr. Joy replied 76 feet.

Gary Hindman, 1330 Sage Ridge Road, asked where the access to lot 1 would be.  Mr. Joy replied that lots 1 and 2 would have a common driveway off of Sage Ridge Road and would follow the property line on both sides.  Mr. Hindman stated he felt an additional driveway on Sage Ridge Road would create a problem due to the switchbacks on the road and suggested the developer should think of another way to access those lots.  Mr. Joy replied that the current lay out was in a flat area accommodating drainage and would allow a vehicle to slowdown before stopping at the intersection.

Bud Thompson, stated that he believed lot 4 was also a natural drainage area for the entire mountainside.  Debbie Cook, 1419 Mountain View Road, stated that they knew of the soils conditions of their lot; spent a lot of extra money in engineering; took the proper steps to prevent problems and have still had huge problems with their home.  Ms. Cook stated it would be frightening to see someone else in the same situation they were in, she also questioned whether the water would absorb into the ground, as the reports say the entire area has poor soil conditions, or will the drainage from this development run into our backyards.

Chris Foreback, owner of the north portion of Terry Thompson’s lot, asked if the soils report indicated whether other homes in the area would be favorable.  Mr. Foreback also asked what the law says about how higher ground affects lower ground, what would the liability be?

Mayor Loshbaugh asked for comments from the Planning Commission and the Trustees.  Trustee Mills commented that current code states one cannot drain on your neighbor.  Trustee Etheridge asked for clarification on staff’s comments regarding extending the water mains 15 feet past the property line.  Planner Sheridan explained that the developer’s sketch plan indicates the water mains don’t meet the requirement on lots 1 and 4, and an improvements agreement would be required to extend the service.

Planning Commission member Keith Rholl stated sanitation, drainage and driveway access are all concerns, but if engineered correctly can be overcome and used the towns of Telluride and Vail as examples, adding that we should proceed with extreme caution though.

Attorney Viscardi added that state statute dictates no individual sewage system or disposal permits shall be issued if located within a district of a municipality unless determined by the municipality, which means it may not be eligible for sewage system permitting by the state if it is feasible to extend that service to the property.

Trustee Mills asked if a developer was required to hook up to utilities if the property is within 400’ feet of annexed property.  Attorney Viscardi replied that the Sanitation District, under state statute, can designate its own service area or district and can make their own determination on annexation.

Planner Sheridan read a letter from Patricia Thompson, 1449 Mountain View Road, and is attached to the minutes for the record.  Mayor Loshbaugh asked if the Fire District has any recommendations on defensible space.  Sheridan replied that the County does have a fire mitigation plan, but she was uncertain of the exact requirements.

Mayor Loshbaugh reminded everyone that the sketch plan is only step one of the entire process and that we weren’t to the point of evaluating the affect of storm water drainage on the neighbors as that will be considered during the building envelopes.  Mr. Joy addressed Attorney Viscardi’s comments regarding feasibility to connect sewer to four homes with only one line.  Attorney Viscardi replied that a developer can’t “hoist off” responsibility on the homeowners if the ability is there to put it in, stating yes, it does naturally cost money especially when it may affect neighboring properties.  Mr. Joy replied we don’t know that it will negatively impact the neighbors. Viscardi replied that feasibility may be determined by the board and that financial feasibility may be over run by health and safety concerns.  Trustee Mills stated he felt the Board needed more information about the septic systems.  Mr. Joy stated the opportunity is there if done right.

Coley Turner asked Superintendent Overton if he saw the proposed open space as an asset to the Town.  Overton replied that he does see it as a problem due to the rock fall in the area and damage to the Town’s water tanks.  Mr. Turner recommended the Board not approve an easement through the open space area as it would be dangerous for public use.  Turner also requested language or zoning to not allow further division of the four lots.

Debbie Cook suggested more research to ensure that it is done correctly.  Mr. Joy stated that the developer would need some indication, before expending more money, that the application proceed to the preliminary plat stage in order to address some of these issues.

Trustee Etheridge asked what the Board was approving in a sketch plan.  Attorney Viscardi replied the Board is approving a concept plan and everything within it.  The Preliminary Plan stage will be reviewed at the Planning Commission meetings which will not be public hearings as tonight, although the public can comment at the Planning Commission meetings.  Viscardi stated that approval of the sketch plan can be tabled to decide where the Board wants to go from here or for the developer and staff to come back with further information; it can be approved with conditions; or denied based upon non compliance with the Comprehensive Plan or because it is outside the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the subdivision ordinance does not provide for it.

Trustee Mills commented that the subdivision would be a nice place for homes and if done properly would be an asset to the community, adding that a lot of concerns have been addressed and he was in favor of approving the sketch plan contingent upon a study of the septic systems and the relationships of driveways and drainage.

Peggy Strate stated that she felt the water drainage problem should be studied further by an unbiased group.  Bud Thompson stated he didn’t feel enough work had been done regarding the sewer on each one of the lots.  Coley Turner asked if the plan was approved with conditions did that mean more discussion at the next meeting and would it be a public meeting.  Mayor Loshbaugh stated yes, there will be more meetings and that all meetings are public, you may not be notified of them but the agendas will be posted in the newspaper.  Turner asked how much input the public will have if the plan is approved with contingencies.  Mr. Joy stated from his experience, the sketch plan is only conceptual, and the preliminary plat stage is negotiable.  Attorney Viscardi suggested a mailing list from the people in attendance to be notified of the meetings.

Trustee Etheridge commented on the open space and public trail stating she didn’t think the public, or the Town, would want, need or use them, adding it doesn’t make sense for the Town to take on that liability.  Etheridge also stated that it appears 50% of the lots would require variances if it is approved which leads me to believe more work needs to be done at the Planning Commission stage or from the developer and recommended remanding it to the Planning Commission for further study.  Trustee Thomson agreed with Etheridge to remand the sketch plan to the Planning Commission to address the issues brought up by neighbors.

Mayor Loshbaugh stated that we need answers and felt the Board had no choice but to table it until the next meeting.

A motion was made by Trustee Etheridge to table Resolution 2, Series 2008 and reconvene the Public Hearing to the next Board meeting on February 5, 2008. Second by Trustee Thomson.  Ayes: Etheridge, Thomson and White.  Nay:  Mills.  Motion carried.

Discussion with Bailey Franklin concerning Circle Park Improvements and grant application for a Fishing is Fun Grant.  Colorado Division of Wildlife Officer (CDOW), Bailey Franklin, addressed the Board about potential improvements at Circle Park which include enlargement and excavation of the existing irrigation ditch that is owned by White River Electric Assoc. (WREA) into a small trout fishing pond; expansion and improvement of the existing paved parking lot; the addition of a permanent restroom facility and improving or replacing the existing picnic shelters.

Officer Franklin presented rough sketches prepared by CDOW personnel and rough cost estimates for primarily the improvements to the fishing pond as a starting point for discussion within the community explaining this could be a potentially very large project that would require a considerable amount of funding, support and input from the various stakeholders in the community.  Officer Franklin recommended breaking the project into multiple phases focusing on improvements of the fishing pond which is proposed to be one surface acre in size with an aeration system and a variety of water depths up to 12 to 15 feet to maximize trout habitat.  Franklin stated another idea that is proposed is a walking path around the pond although the south side may be an issue due to the rock ledges.

Officer Franklin informed the Board that the area at the top of the diversion ditch is an old hydro electric plant which is owned by WREA.  Ron Spencer of WREA stated they are currently having the area surveyed and would be very interested in the idea of partnering in the project.  Officer Franklin recommended, if the Board was interested in pursuing the project, getting the stakeholders together to figure out funding and where to go from here. Franklin explained the CDOW Fishing Is Fun Grant Program applications are accepted annually, with the deadline for this year being February 29^th.  The program provides Federal matching funds to local Colorado communities and can reimburse project sponsors for up to 75 percent of approved expenses and range from $1,000.00 to $400,000.00 annually if the application is approved.  Franklin explained the regional review will be in March, the application would then go before several review processes before final approval which would be in March of 2009.

Officer Franklin discussed other issues that would need addressed including possible 404 permits from Army Corps of Engineers; negotiating a possible lease with the WREA for water rights; working with other stakeholders to ensure the pond improvement design would not cause any irrigation conflicts; working with the water commissioner and other water users to file for storage rights for the stored water in the pond assuming groundwater will be an issue if excavated to the depths of 12 to 15 feet; and would likely need to apply for a well permit to address the issue of exposed groundwater.

Manager Day suggested applying for the grant with the concept presented and putting dollar figures to it while planning the construction phase for 2009.  Board consensus was to apply for the grant.

Discussion concerning Community Needs Assessment.

Postponed to a later meeting.

TOWN ATTORNEY’S REPORT

None.

OTHER COUNCIL BUSINESS

None.

ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Loshbaugh adjourned the meeting at 10:53 p.m.

                                                                                    §Steve Loshbaugh, Mayor

Attest:

§Lisa Cook, Town Clerk