Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 PC Staff Report 11.14.2007Exhibits (11/14/07) Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibits (Battlement Mesa Rezone) -A Proof of Mail RPc eipts -B-----Preo€ e€ Publication C Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended D Comprehensive Plan of 2000 E Staff Report F Response from Road and Bridge Department, 10/31/07 G Response from Consolidated Metropolitan District, 11/5/07 H Application 1 J 1 /1/4 ge5pS leu ql 7" 3 11?1,e oCciv I'it_Ct3 v p 1&N /via, Jerwer Ptd i-trae 11 / 1 40 7 (,v y► L4 a/c'- ��j ters i n m gcv1/4 v .-t5 45 1o12 -17.r1 ,4 s -y y - 9/ acv a -i i�/ / 1 i/o7 1+107 REQUEST EXHIBIT PC 11/14/2007 CM PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Rezone from Public, Semi -Public and Recreational (PSR), Business Center (BC), Open Space (OS), and Central Area Residential (CAR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Low Density Residential (LDR) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Battlement Mesa Partners REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Coyle of Balcomb and Green LOCATION: Battlement Mesa PUD, east of the Town of Parachute and the Colorado River SITE INFORMATION: A total zone change of 259 acres ACCESS: Battlement Parkway and North Battlement Parkway EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: ADJACENT ZONING: t, F J Pv, pit I. THE REQUEST Battlement Mesa Partners, requests to rezone; a total of 259 acres in the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development (PUD), which is a total of7.6% of the PUD. Battlement Mesa is located east of the Town of Parachute, Interstate — 70, and the Colorado River. It is proposed to reduce the acreage of Public, Semi -Public & Recreational (PSR), Business Center (BC), Open Space (OS), and Central Area Residential (CAR) and increase the acreage of Low Density Residential (LDR) and Medium Density Residential (MDR). Public, Semi -Public and Recreational (PSR), Business Center (BC), Open Space (OS), and Central Area Residential (CAR) Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Low Density Residential (LDR) Agricultural Residential Rural Density (ARRD) OS (Open:,Space) 1 rvrr 1) Zoning Map of Battlement Mesa PUD 2 The application breaks down the areas to be effected by the zone change into Area 1, Area 2, and Stone Quarry as shown in the following illustration: 2) Affected Areas of Battlement Mesa PUD II. LAND USE BACKGROUND Battlement Mesa PUD was created as a planned community that would house the employees attracted to the area to work for the oil industry, more specifically, Exxon. Under the original zoning, the "central core" area was intended for high density residential and commercial development, as well as schools and other public uses. The commercial area is centrally located to the development and was originally planned to provide retail, service, and professional office space to a community of 25,000/residents. However, the demand for these uses was dramatically reduced when Exxon closed their facilities on May 2, 1982, which was immediately after the Resolution for the PUD was approved in the same year. Portions of the PUD have been subdivided over the past 25 years but a large portion of the property remains un -subdivided. The existing subdivisions within the PUD are Saddleback Village, Monument Creek Village, Willow Creek Village, Battlement Creek Village, and more recently, Valley View Village, and The Fairways. 3 III. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The PUD was designed for a mix of uses as shown in the table below. To the east of the PUD is the Town of Parachute, I-70, and the Colorado River. To the north, south, east and west, is mostly vacant Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density (ARRD) zoned land. However, to the northwest of the property, adjacent to the PUD is Morisania Ranch subdivision. The areas within the PUD that are proposed for rezoning are located with in the "central core," which is bounded by North Battlement Parkway, East Battlement Parkway, County Road 302 to the south, and the golf course to the west. The following tables summarize the PUD's existing zone districts and proposed zone districts with the corresponding acreage. Then the last two tables summarize the total potential dwelling units based on existing and proposed zoning change: 3) Summary of the PUD Zone Districts with Corresponding Acreage 4 SUMMARY OF EXISTING ZONE DISTRICTS ZONE DISTRICT ACRES RURAL DFNSITYRESIDENTIAL (RDR) 403.7 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (GDR) 5762 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) 1422 CENTRAL AREA RESIDENTIAL (CAR) 163.3 MOBILE HOME RESIDENTIAL (MHR) 266.8 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) 21.1 OFFICE PARK (OP) 0 BUSINESS CENTER (BC) 153.8 THOROUGHFARE P.O.W. (ROW) 128+/ - PUBLIC, SEMI-PUBLIC & RECREATIONAL (PSR) 411.6 COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE (OS) 789.7 3) Summary of the PUD Zone Districts with Corresponding Acreage 4 4) Summary of the PUD Proposed Zone Change Corresponding with Acreage rotas BC CAR MDR LDR EXI9RNC ZONING PROPOSED ZONING 1 inch - 1000 ft. 96.96 ACRES 60.2 ACRES ' 1328 ACRES 209 ACRES SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ZONE D0STRtCTS 271 ACRES 1374 ACRES 106 ACRES 93.8 ACRES ZONEDIS77?ICT ACRES -36.5ACRES -1139 ACRES RURAL DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RDR) 403.7 -122 ACRES LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) 6776 MEDIUM DENSITY RE.'SIDFNTIAL (MDR) 2825 CENTR41 AREA RESIDENT -AL (CAR) 59.3 MOBILE HOME RESIDEMZ4L (MHR) 2668 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) 21.1 OFFICE'.PARK (OP) 0 BUSINESS CENTER (BC) 1212 THOROUGHPARERO.W.. (ROW) 128+/ - PUBLIC; SEMI-PUBLIC & RECREATIONAL (PSR) 2261 COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE (O5) 8661 4) Summary of the PUD Proposed Zone Change Corresponding with Acreage rotas BC CAR MDR LDR EXI9RNC ZONING PROPOSED ZONING 1124 ACRES 19.3 ACRES 96.96 ACRES 60.2 ACRES ' 1328 ACRES 209 ACRES 29.9 ACRES 178.6 ACRES 271 ACRES 1374 ACRES 106 ACRES 93.8 ACRES NET CNANGE -98.1 ACRES -36.5ACRES -1139 ACRES 1457 ACRES 1103 ACRES -122 ACRES 5) Net Changes of Acreage in Areas 1, 2, and Stone Quarry 7PrALs UNITS PSR BC MDR LDR £X/ST/NC UNITS PROPOSED UNITS 2656 UNITS 415 LINES 359 UNITS 2143 UNITS 136 UMTS 687 UNITS. NET CHANCE -2238 UN11S 1784 UNITS 551 UNITS 6) Potential Dwelling Units Based on Current and Proposed Zoning in Areas 1,2, and Stone Quarry. Concerning potential dwelling units (DUs), according to Tables Number 5 and 6, if the CAR zone district was to be reduced by 111.9 acres, that would reduce the number of potential DUs by 2,238, thus leaving a potential for 418 DUs. If MDR was to increase by 148.7 acres, that would increase the number of potential DUs by 1,784 DUs, totaling 2,143 potential DUs. Lastly, if LDR was to increase by 110.3 acres that would add a potential for 551 DUs totaling 687 DUs in the LDR zone district. This results in a net change of a total of 97 additional, potential DUs (1,784 MDR + 551 LDR — 5 2,238 CAR = 97). IV. CONCERNS The following comments and concerns were submitted by Garfield County's Road and Bridge Department: Garfield County Road & Bridge Department has many concerns that would happen with the increased density of residential units. The increased traffic volume would mandate many updates to the road system at Battlement Mesa. The increase in traffic volume should be projected out for the future with road improvements designed to handle the projected traffic volumes. All road improvements would be at the developer's expense and approved by the Garfield County engineer. The maintenance of all new roads would not become the responsibility of Garfield County and would not become a part of our road system. Garfield County Road & Bridge Department would like to see some of these concerns addressed prior to our approving the application for the zoning change for more residential units. We do not disagree that more residential units are consistent with the surrounding area and necessary for the influx of new people into this area needing housing. (Emailed response, 10/31/07) Additional concerns were provided by the Consolidated Metro District which states the following: The Consolidated Metropolitan District has rcviewcd and considered the materials you sent regarding the requested rezone of the Battlement Mesa PUD. We are concerned that reduction in PSR and BC zoning and the increase in MDR and LDR zoning &lows too much residential density. The requested rezone of rnajor parts of Battlement Mesa will, in the long term, impair our ability to be a balanced and well planned community. We are also concerned about the need to resolve basic road and traffic issues as part of the planning for Battlement Mesa. All of the arca requested for rezone is outside our district boundary. We have requested Battletnent Mesa Partners include the property into the District. Thus far, they have refused. This complicates our planning and makes it more difficult to kcvp track of District boundaries. We request that any approvals of rezoning be conditionixl with a requirement of inclusion into the Consolidated Metropolitan District. We do not have the ability at this point to provide water service to two large peels (5-2 Stone Quarry Commons and the old High School Parcels). To serve these parcels would require the building of a new water tank higher up on the Mesa. We do not have the money to build the required tank at this time. 7) Letter from Consolidated Metropolitan District, 11/5/07 6 V. STAFF COMMENTS The Colorado Revised Statutes establish the standards of review for rezoning land in the county. The standards depend on whether the proposed rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). If so, the proposed rezoning need only bear a reasonable relationship to the general welfare of the community. If the rezoning is in conflict with the Plan, the Applicant needs to show either 1) that an error was made in establishing the current zoning, or 2) that there has been a change in the conditions of the neighborhood that supports the requested zone change. At present, the subject properties are designated "Outlying Residential" in the Plan which generally conflicts with the Resource Land zone district sought for the property. As a result, the rezoning request needs to demonstrate that either 1) an error was made in establishing the current zoning, or 2) that there has been a change in the conditions of the neighborhood that supports the requested zone change. Staff offers the following thoughts in addition to the previously provided information: a. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The PUD is identified in the Comprehensive Plan of 2000 as "subdivision." It appears that one of the main purposes of the PUD was for subdivision into residential and commercial lots. The following goals apply to the requested rezone: Goal: To provide all types of housing that ensures current and future residents equitable housing opportunities which are designed to provide safe, efficient residential structures that are compatible with and that protect the natural environment. Goal: Designate and encourage growth favorable zones adjacent to community limits. /S Cat .S-, p.n. r For these reasons, the proposed rezone to increase the resfdenhally zoned, acreage would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if the application would have demonstrated that the conditions of the nefghbbrhood have changed to such a degree to warrant the requested rezone. b. Error in Zoning The PUD was approved through a formal public hearing process and was approved by the Board of County Commissioners through Resolution. Staff believes the present zoning of the subject parcels was not done in error. The Applicant does not assert there was an error in the present zoning of the property. c. Change in Conditions of the Neighborhood The application indicates that there is ac, ange in the conditions of the neighborhood. According to the application "The changes in zoning de\ieations are intended to respond to the to the existing demographics of the community that have developed overtime as opposed to creating a `company town' as was originally planned." This may be-tme, but substantial information has not been 7 submitted to demonstrate the changes that have "developed over time." VI. STAFF SUMMARY In light of the forgoing, Staff makes the following observations: The application failed to address how additional dwelling units would be served by water (§4.08.05(7)(c)(i), sewer (§4.08.05(7)(c)(ii) and has not demonstrated how additional use of these services would not harm the services of the existing PUD residents. The application also has not demonstrated how additional trip generation would impact the PUD and the surrounding area. Although the applicant attempted to address Section 4.12.03 of the Zoning Resolution, without directly addressing water, sewer, and traffic impacts, it has not been demonstrated how the potential increased density of the rezone would not adversely affect the residents of the PUD. The aforementioned sections read as follows: §4.08.05(7)(c)(i) The proposed water source legally & physically adequate to service the PUD; §4.08.05(7)(c)(ii) The proposed method of sewage treatment legally and physically adequate to service the PUD. If the PUD application proposes to utilize existing, central facilities, the application shall contain a letter from the district or provider that adequate excess capacity currently exists and will be devoted to accommodating the development, or that the capacity will be expanded to adequately accommodate the development; (A. 97-109) §4.12.03 All those provisions of the Plan authorized to be enforced by the County may be modified, removed or released by the County, subject to the following: (1) No modification, removal or release of the provisions of the Plan by the County shall affect the rights of the residents, occupants and owners of the PUD to maintain and enforce those provisions at law or in equity; and (2) No substantial modifications, removal or release of the provisions of the Plan by the County shall be permitted except upon a finding by the County, following a public hearing called and held in accordance with the provisions of Section 24-67- 104. C.R.S., that the preservation of the entire PUD does not affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the PUD, or the public interest, and is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. 8 VII. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1) That all applicable regulations regarding a zone district amendment have been complied with including, but not limited to, Section 10.00 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 2) That the application has not addressed §4.08.05(7)((i), §4.08.05(7))(ii), and §4.12.03 of the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 3) That the conditions of the neighborhood have not changed to such a degree to support the requested zone change from PSR, BC, and CAR to LDR and MDR. 4) That the proposed rezoning from PSR, BC, and CAR to LDR and MDR is not in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. VIII. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I moved to deny the rezoning of Battlement Mesa PUD from PSR, BC, and CAR to LDR and MDR." 9