HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 03.06.1995E - P4 5.2 .
• 3-
p 3-95-
�yLa� Lprtry<
CA1C.,k so FRED CAPA4
E� l�
3L - L �7, e � F0-6 ..--
r �lr�c CW,41,4L.-rv--r LiIhT Ci0
Bones OR GoV qj \( Co M.mss. a En
It, Pi?
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
BOCC 3-6-95
R EQUEST: Zone District Change from A/R/RD
to R/G/UD
APPL,1CANT: Ed Podolak/Robert Arnold
LOCATION: A parcel of land located in Section
33, T7S, R87W of the 6th PM;
Located between the old and new
State Highway 82 alignment, at the
Eagle/Garfield County Line.
SITE DATA: 9.0 acres
WATER: Mid -Valley Metro
SEWER: Mid -Valley Metro
ACCESS: Old State Highway 82
EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD
ADJACENT ZONING: North: R/L/SD
South: A/R/RD
East: Eagle County
West: A/R/RD
L R ELATIONSHIP TO TUE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The tract of land is located in District C - Rural Areas, Minor Environmental
Constraints, as shown on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Environmental
Constraints Map.
II. DESCRIPTION OF TULJROPOSAi.
A.
Site Description: The subject parcel is primarily historic agricultural land that
was bisected by the main body of former ranch by the State Highway 82
realignment in September of 1992. The realignment created two geographically
separate parcels: an 11.8 acre parcel on the south side of the new four -lane; and
a 28.3 acre parcel north of the four -lane. The north parcel was granted rezoning
and subdivision approval for 48 multi -family and 16 single-family units in 1994.
The southern parcel (subject to the rezoning request) is located between the old
and new SI 182, and includes several outbuildings and three mobile homes. The
application is requesting rezoning for the nine (9) acre tract, and the 2-i- "old
homestead" would remain as a separate legal parcel under A/R/Rd zoning.
A vicinity map is included in the application (see pages9
• •
B. Request. The applicant is requesting a zone district amendment to rezone the
property from A/R/RD to R/G/UD (Residential/General/Urban Density). The
R/G/UD zone district allows for a minimum of 7,500 square feet lot size. The
zone text for the R/G/UD zone district is shown on pages 1`417
Assuming a 15 percent reduction for utilities, roads, and required setbacks, a
maximum single-family buildout for the 9.0 acre parcel would be approximately
44 dwelling units'. Staff notes that the intent of the applicant is to pursue multi-
family units within a PUD. The proposed PUD envisions 80 units in the site.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of R/G/SD
(Residential/General/Suburban Density) for the site. This zone district would
allow 20,000 square foot lots, as well as multi -family units. Based on the same
methodology cited earlier, the R/G/SD zone district would allow a single-family
build -out of 17 single-famil dwelling units. The zone text for the R/G/SD zone
district is shown on pages L1'' Iq
The Board cannot base its decision on the current rezoning request on the
proposed PUD, but rather the appropriateness of the zoning application. The
PUD has been scheduled for a public meeting before the Planning Commission
on March 8th, 1995 and the public hearing before the Board is scheduled for
March 20th, 1995. lithe Board fails to reach a decision on the rezoning request,
the PUD hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board cannot be
held.
C. Rati.QnafQr Rezoning Sequence. Section 4.07.06 of the Garfield County
Subdivision Regulations reads as follows:
The overall density shall be no greater than four (4) dwelling units per acre
within the Plitt,- provided however, that the County Commissioners may allow
an increase to a maximum of fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre in areas where
public water and sewer systems owned and operated bya municipal government
or special district (Section 32-1-103 (20), C.R.S.) are readily a viala ble, and the
prior zone district allowed residential densities greater than four (4) dwelling
units per acre, such densities being determined by reference to the maximum lot
coverage, minimum setback, maximum floor area ratio, maximum building
height and parking standards of such zone classification."
The applicant is requesting R/G/UD zoning to allow for densities greater than
four (4) dwelling units per acre, establishing a basis for submitting a PUD
request for 80 units. The recommendation of staff and the Planning
Commission (R/G/U D) would also allow for multi -family units, consistent with
the PUD.
'Total SFUs = (Total Acreage - Roads, Utilities, Setbacks) / 7500 sq. ft. per lot
_ (9.0 * 43560 sq. ft/acre) - 15% / 750)
= (392040 - 58806) / 7500
= 44
• •
IIL MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Applicable State Regulations. The standard to review a rezoning request
depends on whether the proposed rezoning is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan (Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 1984). If so, the
proposed rezoning need only bear a reasonable relationship to the general
welfare of the community.
If the rezoning would be in conflict with the comprehensive plan, however, the
applicant generally needs to show either (a) that an error was made in
establishing the current zoning, or (b) that there has been a change in the
conditions of the neighborhood that support the requested zoning change.2 In
the absence of past error or a material change in the character of the
neighborhood that requires a rezoning to benefit the public interest, property
owners have the right to rely on existing zoning regulations.'
1. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Compliance. The current
Comprehensive Plan is a "policy document", as opposed to a "land use
document". Staff has been careful to cite sections applicable to zoning
applications. A large portion of the Comprehensive Plan deals with site -
design issues, such as access configurations, etc.. Although a PUD has
been submitted, issues such as site design are not applicable to the
rezoning request, which is independent of the issue before the Board.
Applicable sections of the Comprehensive Plan include policies regarding
I -lousing and Water/Sewer Services.
Ilousing. GOAL: "Provide for affordable and diverse housing types
capable of accommodating the needs of County residents, in all income
ranges, without putting a financial burden on existing public services."
Objective 4 encourages the development of low and moderate income
housing, so that a larger portion of the County residents have an
opportunity to buy dwelling units. Policy 4B, designed to implement the
objective, reads "Developments with areas for low and moderate income
housing are never mandatory, but will be looked at favorably, and are
always appropriate".
SlafLAnalysis. The ultimate definition of what is in fact "affordable" is
a subjective debate. Staff notes that the provision of single-family units
on the property, either within a two -acre configuration or as a single nine
(9) acre parcel, will clearly demand a market price per dwelling unit that
far exceeds 20,000 square foot lots requested by the applicant.
The Planning Commission and staff have had considerable discussions
related to housing affordability. Based on information summarized in
the proposed Comprehensive Plan, the average cost of a single-family
home in the Upper Roaring Fork Valley is approximately $200,000.
Based on commonly applied mortgage underwriting standards used for
2See Kirigs Mill Homeowner's Associztlon Inc v. City of Wcs[minstc[and Roosevelt v. City of Englewood
492 P. 2d 65 (Colo. 1971).
3See Coleman v. Gormley, 748 P.2(1361 (Colo. App. 1987).
• .
estimating affordability indices, a household can afford a home costing
2.8 times their annual income (assumes no debt load and 9.25 percent
interest rate). The 1990 census found a an average household income in
the Carbondale area of $29,176, which can afford a home costing
$81,700. The opportunities for such a home is isolated to the western
portions of the County, further separating residents from employment
opportunities.
Water and Sewer Services. GOAL: "Ensure that the provision of
legal, adequate, dependable, and cost effective sewer and water facilities
and to encourage new development to locate in proximity to existing
sewer and water facilities."
Objective 2 encourages development locating adjacent to existing
subdivisions or municipalities with avialable capacity in their central
water system to become a part of the existing system. Policy 2 requires
"that where a logical and economic extension of service lines from an
existing water and/or sewer system can occur, the County will encourage
new development adjacent to or within reasonable distance to serve, to
enter into appropriate agreements to receive service".
Objective 6 "encourages high density development to locate adjacent to
or within the service area of a central water and sewer system". Policy 6
finds that "high density development is considered urban in nature and
will require urban types of services, thus the County will encourage high
density development to locate in areas with urban services available".
SlafLAnilysis. The site has been annexed into the Metro District, and
has finalized all necessary approvals from Eagle County via a 1041
process. The number of taps approved by Eagle County is a point of
contention, put planning staff has indicated that 38 taps are avialable.
Assuming this number is correct, the proposed zoning to R/L/SD is
consistent with these approvals. If multi -family housing was pursued
beyond the 38 taps, evidence would have to be submitted by the applicant
that the necessary EQRs have been obtained.
The rezoning application is clearly consistent with Objective 6, which
encourages higher density development to occur in areas with access to
central water and sewer services. Due to the proximity of low-density
uses south of old SI -I 82, staff would strongly encourage the County to
oppose any further expansion of the Metro District.
2. Eaglk_Qunly Comprehjniive Plan. The property is located on the
Eagle/Garfield County line. The "Mid -Valley Master Plan" (Plan),
approved in December of 1991, included a sub -area analysis of the El
Jebel/Basalt Area. The proposed density patterns suggested by the Plan
for the med-valley area, adjacent to the Arnold Property, is composed of
three designations:
High Density - 4 to 8 units per acre are concentrated around the El Jebel
and Basalt community centers within a 1/2 mile radius (ten minute
walking distance) minimizing the use of automobiles and providing an
efficient relationship between the highest numbers of people and the
required services.
• 1
Medium Density - Residential development densities are reduced with
increasing distance from services. The second density classification (2-6
dwelling units per acre) occurs outside the 1/2 mile walking radius, where
community sewer and water services area available and access to
Ilighway 82 is convenient (emphasis added).
Low Density - Undeveloped land on the south side of the Roaring Fork
River are proposed to remain at current zoning levels but with the
provision that density bonuses will be allowed, such as a limited number
of one or two acre lots.
The R/G/SD zone district allows approximately two (2) dwelling units
per acre. The proposed rezoning conforms to the "Medium Density"
criteria in respect to walking distance (greater than 1/2 mile), access to
central water and sewer, and access to SH 82. Staff notes that the
R/G/SD zone district minimum lot size is at the low end of the suggested
densities in the Mid -Valley Master PhD. The ttelct and maps for the El
Jebel/Basalt Area is shown on pages i
3. Compli ilh Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. The 1984
Plan does not provide a land use map to implement the goals and
objectives of the plan. However, the proposed rezoning application is
consistent with three fundamental findings of the plan:
1. That increased densities should be placed in areas with access to
water and sewer services;
2. That the provision for increasing densities to reflect the provision
of "urban" services is consistent with housing goals to encourage
diverse housing types;
4. Error in Zoning. The parcel was zoned A/R/RD in 1973. The original
zoning pre -dated the realignment of SH 82 and the establishment of the
Metro District. Based on the land use pattern and available
infrastructure in the area, the 1973 zoning was not in error.
5. Change of Conditions.. There have been several significant changes to
the site that suggest two -acre rural zoning is no longer appropriate for
the site. First, the four-laning of State Highway 82 severed this parcel
from the body of historic ranch. Access improvements to State Highway
82 directly west of the property clearly increased the likelihood of density
increases in the area. The provision of water and sewer services provided
by the Mid Valley Metro District ensured the necessary infrastructure to
allow for the residential intensification in the general area (Blue Lake,
Dakota North, etc..).
A Colorado Court of Appeals case in 1973 concluded that "In
determining materiality of any change, for purposes of granting a request
to rezone property, there is no requirement that a physical change in
neighborhood appear, and Board of County Commissioners may
consider needs of entire county as well as affected neighborhood".4
4 information Please lore v. Board of County Commissioners of I'(ugan Coun{x Colo. Ap., 600 P.2d 86.
• •
An additional Colorado Supreme Court case also indicates that a
physical change in a neighborhood is not required to establish a finding
related to a change in character (sometimes referred to as "material
change"). A direct excerpt from the case reads as follows:
"Some of the Planning Commission's findings, adopted by the court as
its own, which were considered material to and warranted the council in
amending the zoning map, were: (a) the increase in the population of the
area, including the building of multi -family dwellings on the eastern
border of the subject site; (b) the effect of the arterial, major six -lane
highway along the southern boundary .... (c) the "need for multi -family
use as only 4.2% of the city is zoned, and much of that land is in the core
area presently held in small ownerships which prevents it from being
acquired fora large development that would lend itself to a well-planned,
multi -family development with the amenities that can be found in a PUD;
(d) that it is not practical under present conditions to expect the site to be
developed for single-family zoning would be a proper development that
would not be greatly detrimental nor have an adverse effect in the area
and particularly for the property in Cherry Hills to the south which is
separated by the major arterial highway".5
B. Applicable County Regulations. Few directions are provided in the County
Zoning Resolution as to criteria for rezonings. Historically, the County
Commissioners have required that three (3) basic findings be met. These include
compliance with procedural requirements of Section 10, that the amendment is
in general compliance with surrounding land uses and zoning and that the
amendment is in the general interest of public health, safety and welfare.
Compliance with Ac(jacent .an 1 Is s. The area north of the property has
transitioned to 20,000 sq. ft. single-family units, and a Preliminary Plan for 48
townhomes has been approved by Garfield County directly adjacent to the
current four -lane alignment of State Highway 82. Blue Lake includes 350 total
dwelling units, ranging in lots sizes from 7,000 to 20,000 square feet.
Approximately 50 multi -family units have been constructed approximately 1/2
mile west of the Arnold Property, south of State Highway 82. All these
developments receive water and sewer services from the Mid -Valley Metro
District.
All development south of Old SH 82, and outside of the Metro District, are rural
in nature, and range in lot sizes from 2 to 10 acres. Staff has no knowledge of
plans to expand the Metro District south of Old SH 82, and would oppose such
expansion based on the need to retain the rural character of the Roaring Fork
river bottom. A land use map of the area will be presented at the hearing.
Public Health, Safety and Welfare. Approximately 90 percent of private land
in the Roaring Fork Valley the County is zoned A/R/RD, which requires a two -
acre minimum lot size. Less than 2 percent of the County is zoned for lots below
the 2 -acre allowed under A/R/RD zoning.6
5Roossvelt v. City ofFcllewooc( Colo. 492P.2c16S.
6Estimates ofgross acreage per zone district is based on data included in the County's Geographic Information
System (GIS), and is based on technical background information compiled for the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Study Area I includes all land west and south of Glenwood Springs, to the Eagle County/Pitkin County Line.
4 t
• •
The property in question is located between a four -lane state highway and an
improved frontage road. In addition, the site is served by central water and
sewer services. The use of the site for rural, two -acre single-family residential
uses is inconsistent with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, the Mid -
Valley Master Plan density provisions, as well as the orderly development of the
mid -valley area.
Testimony has been given regarding the safety of the existing intersection with
State Highway 82. The majority of criticism has been based on assumptions of
the pending PUD, which would allow up to 80 units on the site. The current
zone amendment would allow approximately 17 units under a single-family
configuration. Any subsequent subdivision would require that the applicant
resolve stacking issues at the intersection prior to approval.
IV. AGENCY ANILAL.IACFNT OWNERS RESPONSES
Staff referred the application to a 1 County for review, and Paul Clarkson's
comments are shown on pages i).•ar
Staff's response to Mr. Clarkson's comments, in sequence to numbered paragraphs, are
as follows:
The stacking issue in reference to Valley Road is an issue that the applicant must
resolve prior to any subdivision or PUD approval. Staff notes that the
assumptions are based on the 80 unit PUD, as opposed to the current rezoning
application. Again, the burden to resolve impacts to the intersection is on the
applicant.
2. The EQR issue is a critical hurdle to pursuing the PUD, due to the discrepancy
between Eagle County's position (38 EQRs) and the Mid Valley Metro District
(45 EQR s). It is staff's position that the current zoning request is consistent with
the provision for water and sewer service, but the PUD fails to provide evidence
of the same.
3. As cited earlier, the current zoning request (2 units per acre) is consistent with
applicable sections of the Mid -Valley Master Plan. As noted by Mr. Clarkson,
the PIJD does not share the same conformity.
4. The Dakota North project in Garfield County had an average density of 1.4
acres per dwelling unit (63 units on 45.3 acres). The multi -family portion of the
project, directly fronting SII 82 in the lower, flatter portions of the site, had an
average density of 2.4 DUs per acre (48 units on 19.9 acres).
5. The 200 foot setback, supported by Planning Staff, is not applicable to Garfield
County (100 setback requirement).
6. All of these issues pertain to the PUD.
Mr. Ga e as also responded to the application, and his comments are shown on
pages Art he response to these comments are numbered to coincide with the
numbers shown on Mr. Gannett's comments:
1 x•
• •
1/2. The Garfield County Zoning Regulations require noticing of adjacent
jurisdictions prior to the public hearing before the Board of County
Commissioners. Furthermore, Mr. Gannett cites opposition of Eagle County
to the PUD ("Had the Planning Commission been apprised of Eagle
County's opposition to the aforementioned PUD, it may have
significantly modified its approval, or reject the zoning request outright.")
Staff has similar concerns with the PUD, which is not the subject of the issue
before the Board. The proposed R/G/SD zoning is in fact consistent with the
Mid -Valley Master Plan, and the avialable EQRs from the Metro District.
3. The entire issue of changed circumstances been addressed earlier, including
pertinent case cites from Colorado case law.
4. The available EQRs, although in dispute, is consistent with the existing zoning
request for approximately 17 units. Staff agrees that this is not the case with the
pending PUD.
5. Staff has no comments regarding the issues with Mr. Podolak's representations,
particularly when they have no bearing on the current rezoning request. This
may not be the case at time of PUD review.
A number of adjacent residents • so coo1 en ted at the Planning Commission, and these
letters are attached on pages3 a
IV. R EQUIR I;D FIN DINGS
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 public hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and
complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all
interested parties were heard at that meeting.
3. That the proposed zoning is in general compliance with surrounding land uses
and zoning in Garfield County.
4. That the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan policies regarding the location of urban/suburban land uses
in areas where central water and sewer are avialable.
5. That the proposed zoning is in the best interests of the public health, safety and
welfare of citizens of Garfield County.
V. RECOMMENDATION
On January 18, 1995, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning to
R/G/SD with a vote of 6-0.
January 4, 1995
Mr. Mark Bean
Board of County Commissioners
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE: DAKOTA SOUTH TOWNIIOMES AND APARTMENTS
Dear Commissioners:
This is to inform you that Ed Podolak, the approved agent and
joint venture partner in the venture known as the Island Project
which consists of nine acres of land at the eastern side of
Garfield County between old and new highway 82 in Section 33,
Township 7 South, Range 87 West, would like to request a zoning
amendment to this property. The zoning being requested is:
R/GQID - Resisiantial /Ganarral/Urbzn_Dansity
The use would be multi -family with a right of future
subdivision of the multi -family with private drives,
parking, good landscaping and berming. Final zoning
approvals would be granted through a P.U.D. See
attached legal description.
The described property has already been annexed into the Mid
Valley Metropolitan District for water and sewer service. The
zoning being requested is compatible with the density of Dakota
Subdivision located to the north and Blue Lake Subdivision
located to the north and east. This project would define the
western boundary of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. It
would also define the western boundary of the El Jebel community.
There is considerable demand for employee housing in the El Jebel
area.
A check for $500.00 made to Garfield County Treasurer was
included with the May 9, 1994 application for a P.U.D. that has
been withdrawn. Please advise if that fee could now be used for
this application. Also included are the zone district maps
showing the project location and a list of adjacent property
owners.
I'odolah Real Estate & Invest►ncn1, Inc.
P.O. Box 500.3 • Aspen, Colorado 81612-5003 • 6f30.L",.}7.§M GU%l Xi:M 3?.U.3?X;VA 41,}3{
9
Mr. Mark Bean
Page Two
If you have any questions, please contact me at the following:
Since ly
Ed Podolak
720 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-0577
c'", c-/7- ite
Ed P iolak
EJP/pk
Enclosure
DAKOTA SOUTH
TOWNIIOMES AND APARTMENTS
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
LOT 1
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN LOTS 4 AND 6, THE NW1/4SE1/4, THE S1/2NE1/4
AND IN THE SEI/4NW1/4NE1/4 OF SECTION 33, TOWNSI-IIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 87
WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF
COLORADO; SAID PARCEL BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT TI -IE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 33, A BRASS CAP
IN PLACE; THENCE N 55°51'58" W 2933.95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF OLD STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE
EASTERLY LINE OF GARFIELD COUNTY, THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING:
THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE N 72°10'33" W ALONG SAID NORTHERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY 865.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY
N 12°14'27" E 287.00 FEET; THENCE N 06°44'27" E 77.00 FEET; THENCE N 08°45'33"W
245.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF
NEW HIGHWAY 82; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG
THE ARC OF A CURVE TO TI -IE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2774.79 FEET AND A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9°29'54", A DISTANCE OF 460.00 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING
ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGI-IT-OF-WAY S 51°46'25" E 253.64 FEET; THENCE
CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY S 53°40'18" E 230.70 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID GARFIELD COUNTY; THENCE
LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY RIGI-IT-OF-WAY S 00°00'20" W ALONG SAID EASTERLY
LINE 353.34 FEET TO T1 -IE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID PARCEL CONTAINING
9.01 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
DECEMBER 29, 1994
9419LECL
LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION
We, Robert Arnold and Gloria Arnold, the owners of the property located in Garfield
County between new highway 82 and old Highway 82., hereby authorize Edward Podolak to
apply for a Zoning and subdivision on our behalf.
Gloria Arnold
94I6nuth
i�-2Co-9y
Date
/v2-'_'-_7
Date
DAKOTA SOUTI-I TOWNI-IOMES
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
Public Service
P.O. Box 840, Suite 400
Denver, Co 80201-0840
Alpine Animal I-lospital
17776 Highway 82
Carbondale, Co 81623
Dakota Partners
Ed Podolak
C/0 Coates, Reid & Waldron
720 E. Ilyman
Aspen, Co 81611
Roaring Fork School District
P.O. Box 820
Glenwood Springs, Co 81602
Robert & Gloria Arnold
2542 Emma Road
Basalt, Co 81621
9419APOG
Mid Valley Metropolitan District
2542 Emma Road
Basalt, Co 81621
I Ienry Edward Jr. & Cherie Lynn Booker
P.O. Box 568 -Ay 82
Snowmass, Co 81654
Bradley L. & Renee Allee I3lack
57 Arlian Road
Carbondale, Co 81623
Williams Brothers, Inc.
P.O. Box 28002
El Jebel, Co 81628
.166
/ I
.• •1:?-' 11.
.\
—s
---,T..-- ....) ----• ,---- -----;---
. . 1„.:-_—. ...„_....----- • , / i • ,
, 1 . , --„,,-.:--„;
. - , ,.., ).. - ,---r-
1- ----------„-_ , ,,„.. „,„•_\......„1,N,,-, .,,,_--
;_,-_ )
, .
. -'.- -- .1
0
7000 • .1 .
:
••••., ,.. _ , I .."-•-•••-- ...-:\.,..
..:•••• • 7 ' ..,!i,
-...-,..._'N, --iv:: --- - ..-.7-7.-••• . ! ' --;• "------''
)‘ `.....„_ ..... 4 ii.Z.›..•.-
i --- \ ....-..s'N•\ . -•-•„, `----11 , •
;1
.4 S..-
.::
)i••
Z . - - - - 1 - - \''ll - -•'-,-\.-- - = - - -. :7:3 , ..., • . - - . - 7•-...1..- -Th. S... - ,........1:-. ' * r \ ..,
• • %
Cr
' S-,_.>:'-- '-- '. " '. ', • \ - - ,"'-\--'‘ • - : , '- / ±S - :"_, , / '
,4 .-... • •••'•--,::::::::......., -• ....\-.--- ,.
•
\
0, ,
•
0
z
63
3 2
33
0
3IT
0
4 4.
"6C l•
14 •
650f
2
It
•
•
. .
• 0
4,/
16
El
. 'Jebl
I\ `-
elank `-`?)
f
• ; ' ./
i -
<87
\;)- • ...
:'
I 1
,62i
\.- -." ';-.:2V;;;.•-: \ ,
r I; .n t./ •
It- I
( i \
t
‘I I'
I
. )
K
c' : f- ( --(11.1Cfi\ - . - - '' •
) ,- \ _;)
'61 i ./ / .,..
1...,.., _,_,,
-‘l,.\ \-- ---, \-,,.1
1 ) - \
1
6454
•••
MEP
A
A/R/FRD
• Ly
0
•
•
R/ L/5 •.
.\\1Itt.N\a4:
'11
UID )41
•
v.1Vf R
•
r! '. 1 v • 1 1
. ,. ( •
' ( '
t�
2.0 H(r f✓jAP
/' 4.11 r 1f.
6 00
0/ s
. i"�jL! 001
1,
• •
12/G/SI) -- Residential/General/Suburban Density 3.05.01
of the lot for residential purposes and fences, hedges, gardens, walls and
similar landscape features; park; wholesale nursery provided all non -plant
materials and equipment is enclosed in a building or obscured from sight.
(A. 85-173).
3.05.02 Uses conditional: Row house; studio for conduct of arts and crafts;
home occupation; church, community building, day nursery and school.
3.05.03 Uses, speecisll: Mobile home park, water impoundments, utility lines. (A.
81-145; 86-09)
3.05.04 Minimum Lot Area: Twenty thousand (20,000) square feet and as further
provided under Supplementary Regulations.
3.05.05 Mllxintiinl_Inl Ccwerlge: Thirty-five percent (35%).
3.05.06 Minimum Setback:
(1) Front yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feel From street
centerline or filly (50) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; (b)
local streets: filly (51)) feel from street centerline or twenty-five (25) feet
from front lot line, whichever is greater;
(2) Rear yard: 'Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot Zinc;
(3) Side yard: 'Ten (10) feel from side lot line or one-half (1/2) the
height of the principal building, whichever is greater.
3.05.07 M:lxinn1np !!eight of Buildings: 'Twenty-five (25) feel.
3.05.08 Maximum Floor Area Ratio: 0.25/1.0 and as further provided under
Supplementary Regulations.
3.03.09 Additional Reclltircmcnts: All uses shall be subject to the provisions
under Section 5 (Supplementary Regulations).
‘Ili 3.06 R/G/l1f) -- RES11)FNTIAI./GFNERAI_/URBAN DENSITY
3.06.01
I1scs_by right: Single-family, two-family and multiple -family dwelling,
hoarding and rooming house, and customary accessory uses including
building for shelter or enclosure of animals or properly accessory to use
of the lot for residential purposes and fences, hedges, gardens, walls and
similar landscape features; park.
3.06.02 Uses _conditional: Row house; studio for conduct of arts and crafts;
Dome occupation; church, community building, clay nursery and school.
•
• •
It/G/t11) -- 12csiticntial/(;metal/IIil,an I)ensity 3.06.03
3.06.(3 llscs,_.sl)cc_i;il: Mobile home park; restaurant or retail establishment
accessory to principal use of the lot for multiple -family residential
purposes;
Water impoundments, utility lines. (A. 81-145; 86-09)
3.06.111 Minimum Lot Arca: Seven thousand five hundred (7500) square feet and
as further provided under Supplementary Regulations.
3.06.05 Maximum I.ot Coverage: Fifty percent (503'0).
3.06.06 Minimum Setback:
(I) Front yanl: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feel from street
centerline or filly (50) Incl from front lot line, whichever is greater; (b)
local streets: filly (50) feet from street centerline or twenty-five (25) fcct
from lot line, whichever is greater;
(2) Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line;
(3) Side yard: Ten (10) feel from side lot line or one-half (1/2) the
height of the principal building, whichever is greater.
3.06.07 Maximum Ilcit;l)tof_Buildings: 'Twenty-five (25) feet.
3.06.00 Maximum Floor _Area Ratio: 0.50/1.0 and as further provided under
3.06.1)9
3.07
3.07.01
Supplementary Regulations.
Additional _Recl!iire11tents: All uses shall be subject 0) the provisions
under Section 5 (Supplementary Regulations).
C/I. -- CON! lvll-:RCIAl../I.IMTI'IFI)
lJscs_hY_flgllt: Single-family, two-family and multiple -family dwelling, and
customary accessory uses including building for shelter or enclosure of
animals or properly accessory 0) use of the lot for residential purposes
and fences, hedges, gardens, walls and similar landscape features; park;
hoarding and rooming house; holcl, motel, lodge;
Church, community building, day nursery and school; auditorium, public
building for administration, fraternal lodge, art gallery, museum, library;
Ilospital, clinic, nursing or convalescent home;
Office for conduct of business or profession, studio for conduct of arts
and crafts, provided all activity is conducted within a building;
Commercial establishments, as listed below, provided the following
requirements are observed:
• •
It/I./SD -- Residential/I.iinitccl/Sul)nrhan 1)cnsily 3.03.08
3.03.08 Maximum floor Area Ratio: 0.100/1.0 and as further provided under
Supplementary Regulations.
3.03.09 Additional Requirements: All uses shall he subject to the provisions
under Section 5 (Supplementary Regulations).
3.04 12/L/11D -- RESIDFNTIAI./LIMITED/URI3AN DENSITY
3.04.01 11scs, hy_rijllt: Single-family dwelling and customary accessory uses;
including buildings for shelter or enclosure of animals or property
accessory to use of the lot for single-family residential purposes and
fences, hedges, gardens, walls and similar landscape features; park.
3.04.02 llses_cjndilional: Church, community building, day nursery and school;
row house; home occupation.
3.04.03 )Uses,_speed)): Two-family dwelling, studio for conduct of arts and crafts,
water impoundments, utility lines.' (A. 81-145; 86-09)
3.04.04 Minimum Int Area: Seven thousand live hundred (7500) square feet and
as further provided under Supplementary Regulations.
3.04.05 Maximum Int Coverage: "thirty-five percent (35%).
3.04.06 Minimum Sclhack
(I) Front yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feel from street
centerline or fifty (50) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; (b)
local streets: filly (50) feet from street centerline or twenty-five (25) feet
from front lot line, whichever is greater;
(2) Rear yard: "Twenty-five (25) feet from fear lot line;
(3) Side yard: Ten (10) feel from side lot line or one-half (1/2) the
height of the principal building, whichever is greater.
3.04.07 Maximum IleighlrlBuildings: Twenty-five (25) feet.
3.04.08 Maximum Floor Area Ratio: 0.25/1.0 and as further provided under
Supplementary Regulations.
3.0,1.00 Additional Requirements: All uses shall be subject to the provisions
tinder Section 5 (Supplementary Regulations).
3.05 R/G/SD -- RESIDEN'I'IALJGENERAIJSUBURBAN DENSITY
3.05.01 llses,_hy right: Single-family, two-family and multiple -family dwellings,
hoarding and rooming house, and customary accessory uses including
buildings for shelter or enclosure of animals or properly accessory to use
-/8
• •
It/G/SD -- Residential/General/Suburban Density 3.05.01
of the lot for residential purposes and fences, hedges, gardens, walls and
similar landscape features; park; wholesale nursery provided aII non -plant
materials and equipment is enclosed in a building or obscured from sight.
(A. 85-173).
3.05.02 UJscs, conditional: Row house; studio for conduct of arts and crafts;
home occupation; church, community building, day nursery and school.
3.05.03 llscs, special: Mobile Dome park, water impoundments, utility lines. (A.
8I - I 45; 86-09)
3.05.0,1 Minimum Lot Area: Twenty thousand (20,000) square feet and as further
provided under Supplementary Regulations.
3.05.05 Maximum_LoLCove:rage: Thirty-five percent (35%).
3.05.06 Minimum Setlhack:
(I) front yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feet from street
centerline or fifty (50) feet from front lot Zinc, whichever is greater; (b)
local streets: fifty (50) feet from street centerline or twenty-five (25) feet
from front lot line, whichever is greater;
(2) Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot Zine;
(3) Side yard: Ten (10) feet from side lot line or one-half (1/2) the
height of the principal building, whichever is greater.
3.05.07 MaximumIleight of Buildings: Twenty-five (25) feet.
3.05.08 Maximum Floor Area_Ratio: 0.25/1.0 and as further provided under
Supplementary Regulations.
3.05.09 Additional Regnirenlents: All uses shall he subject to the provisions
under Section 5 (Supplementary Regulations).
3.06 R/G/111 -- RESI I)LNTIAL/GENERAL/URBAN DENSITY
3.06.01 Uses by right: Single-family, two-family and multiple -family dwelling,
hoarding and rooming house, and customary accessory uses including
building for shelter or enclosure of animals or properly accessory to use
of the lot for residential purposes and fences, hedges, gardens, walls and
similar landscape features; park.
3.06.02 llses,_concfitional: Row house; studio for conduct of arts and crafts;
home occupation; church, community building, day nursery and school.
••-• /9
s
r
1
1
1
N
r
r
N
N
✓
✓
r
r
r
r
El ,Jebel/Basalt Area
The El Jebel/Basalt area is currently the most populous, and will continue to expedience
the highest growth pressures. The area of the plan is composed only of the
unincorporated portion of Eagle County. IIowever, it is important to note the existence
of several municipalities and districts. Jurisdiction in the area resides with Eagle County,
Pitkin County, and the Town of Basalt, and is serviced by the Mid Valley Metropolitan
District, the Basalt Sanitation District, the Basalt Water Conservancy District, the
Roaring Fork School District, the Basalt Rural Fire District, as well as a number of
homeowner's associations and irrigation ditch companies.
The master plan for this zone is based on the following policies:
1. Expansion of community services and facilities shall be concentrated in and
around El Jebel and Basalt within 500 feet of existing facilities. (Items on Tables
6-8)
Density Pattern
a. I ligh Density - 4-8 units per acre are concentrated around the El Jebel and
Basalt community centers within a 1/2 mile radius (ten minute walking
distance) minimizing the use of automobiles and providing an efficient
relationship between the highest numbers of people and the required
services.
b. Medium Density - Residential development densities are reduced with
increasing distance from services. The second density classification (2-6
dwelling units per acre) occurs outside the 1/2 mile walking radius, where
community sewer and water services are available and access to Highway
82 is convenient.
c. Low Density - Undeveloped areas on the south side of the Roaring Fork
River are proposed to remain at current zoning levels but with the
provision that density bonuses will be allowed, such as a limited number
of one or two acre lots. The specifics of this provision will be outlined
through the implementation process. Table 13-6 illustrates project
population ranges at buildout based on the above densities.
d. The higher densities in each range will be allowed only through
satisfaction of all the Master Plan goals and policies.
El Jebel/Basalt Area
Master Plan Densities
Density Acreage
Open
Space
Gross
D Us/Acre
Net
DUs/Acre
August 2, 1991
g
Medium
Low
• 45
415
1,108
—x,188 -A
50%
50%
75%
4 - 8
2 - 6
1/35 - 1/14
8 - 16
4 - 12
1/35 - 1/14
2,580 - 5,160
831 - 2,493
32 - 79
7,224 - 1-4,448
2,327 - 6,980
90 - 221
Total
3,443 7,132
9,641 21,650
1
•..�... YM•... f. \.•. )'.. 1.•
't4^xYr'xt:Yirv,.(. /.y.t1Y.•Y�...y. •. 1Y .Yf'. ! yr i`.�...
�'i'• �:vr:;}�1.irr 'yjiM•Y .y.• ••Ii,.:�Nrt
3. Fifty percent of the existing agricultural land is preserved to retain rural character.
(Agricultural land is defined as land that has traditionally been irrigated farm,
ranch land.) Where possible, the agricultural open space is in parcels of 30 acres
or larger to facilitate continued agricultural production, acknowledging that it
may not be profitable, but will probably require maintenance and operation as an
amenity. No germing will be allowed for screening within this area.
A 200 foot building and parking setback adjacent to highway 82 where existing
development does not preclude its application. This setback would be maintained
as agriculture where it abuts agricultural land or as a recreation and trails corridor
where it abuts development. Wherever possible, ditches would flow in or
adjacent to the 200 foot setback, fostering the growth of trees to shade the
pathways and open space and to provide a development screen from the roadway.
No germing will he allowed for screening adjacent to agricultural lands.
4.
5. Visual setbacks along Emma Road and 1lookspur Road, so that no new
development is visible from these corridors. They are indicated as 200 foot
setbacks. Agriculture shall he retained within this 200' setback. The intent, visual
screening, could he accomplished adjacent to developed areas by planting or the
use of existing topographic changes.
6. A minimum 50 foot building setback along the Roaring Fork and Frying Pan
Rivers to facilitate wildlife habitat and water quality protection.
7. The Open space and trails system shall follow the Rio Grand right-of-way, the
edges of agricultural open space, the mountain slope edges, and along key
roadway segments. The system is designed to give access to the river corridors at
environmentally acceptable points, to encourage pedestrian circulation from
residential areas to the community centers, and to provide access to state and
federal lands where recreation opportunities exist. A community park of at least
15 acres should he provided for the Basalt and El Jebel communities, located as
close to the community centers as possible and connected to the open space and
trails system. New schools should occur adjacent to parks. A grade separated
pedestrian way should connect the north and south sides of El Jebel across
llighway 82.
8. The primary road system would he upgraded in its current basic configuration. In
the fl Jebel area, some improvements arc recommended, including adjustment of
the Willits Lane/highway 82 intersection to right angles with a continuous
connection of Willits Lane with the Missouri heights road on both sides of
I lighway 82, and upgrading of Missouri I !eights Road in response to future
development. Willits Lane and Missouri !!eights Road will remain the primary
north/south collectors for future development.
i
-i,.• 1: y' '.:;. i•.'r '•':1' 4;4.444 r.1.44j44%44 •jr.«.N•, A ,
9. Highway 82 shall remain a limited access arterial of parkway configuration.
Intersection spacing shall be a minimum of one mile. Bus stops would be located
only at these intersections. No direct connections shall be allowed to Highway 82
except at intersections. Frontage roads adjacent to highway 82 are discouraged.
10. Transit park and ride lots are located adjacent to community service centers,
should be screened from the highway and serve both community services and
transit needs.
•�., Vi 11� `4
♦� • {�t _ l f `�
/ 9)ENSITYI .;� 1 '--rt} .;
' <,".;f
Summary
SECOUDARY ROAD
URBAN SERVICES BOUNDARY
ftvc•rR1/4N WAY
•• \ t/2 VALE RADIUS
lifr
{1�L••S't4-r1 ._.. O
MGR DENSITY
1SL! t l r�I: t',<.. , to
P'rX -VIII IIII.r 1- • '' '
-t 1.ti r
1.•
/�...'.r. VI
p\\-`lift., 'li,n
u
LI 11 (41311'
0
•
% 1.•
!Al({1t.4..
/: tz-1 t,
•
r1-`11iV;;'.... ,;..::.; ti•' .
_17-- -410
--'— ;.
-L
l ' ♦\ TlzT�i
Development Concept Diagram
The emergent plan based on these concepts fits the land well with the primary
inconsistences being: the River Ranch subdivision (which is lower than the prescribed
density), the narrow strip of development between I lighway 82 and the state wildlife
preserve (mixed low-density residential and strip institutional use), the KOA
campground, the I lolland 1lills subdivision (which violates the 200 foot setback), and
innumerable curb cuts along Ilighway 82. Other than these anomalies, the plan responds
compatibly with the goals and policies previously articulated while responding to the
need for continued development.
4:1
1
0
•‘;`. • I • "
0
.-/
....4 .___ft•ktr......
c4--—
,0
r
•
, .e. • ! /
,
/ 0 _ ..- ,
/
i , / ./.
-
A---,"
I / - . '
Z /
,5, / I
/ . 1
< I t
1
i
c4 -, t... 1 •
/. /< r
- r -- ' ‘1-- ,-?-- • . 1 ,
) .'' /
1 ,
• _. ,, • , o ...s. ,_,,/ ..,,__ .tti..
=
. „, i ....- •..z. - —
,--
, /7,- •• n ---
,,. _ i• it , , •
,......1-..
'-' 4
)u) i •• ) - A __,__ ) : (?I i'''.
...... , ;
. , • • .. r.‘:..-1.) .4 _ 00 1/ fr
---V.
' - -,-----.-,1 I
••-!.--1
:•-•-7•7'-( -;*
e -"' •-• -,.... X.''''
_„..___."------,_, --.-------* .. • K
• --..t.'_,__, ••._.r.r2tr.rAtt..
-1
31
ti**.eti'l
•?........ .. - ':',.:1:::::::::::::::::: f .1 L . ' 10(1
..-:- ,a.1111---4-: • "1 64:' .. "':'-r-4,•:',.
. • 4.#4 .1-.;...... 4. •••••1 11-1
FI -..-2 I, ,_ 1.':;::...i..':.:.1.... .:1c.* ''
t --",,‘ . 1177,::.:':.'' - --r.
E.,. .- P, i'::::;i:::::
, ., :7.!!`.7.!!• (- 1 ! ' :: -H:;
,- / .
• .:.::::: ,. , .
::::::.•*i:•:.: %., rr ,, „,,:„:„„:;: ...„ ''''' . .% •
••••% ,,,
41 • ' , ''' :i: ' :-• 4. -;. ''
';' ':.1...,0.*:, ''''' ,•••• •..., _,-..
rj
.•
, Al . ''''' 1,44`.Y:4#.'. 4' '
' a • .' ,,:••••111:; ,-• e
•..., :::: ' .,„: ;:. ''''' 1 .._-.:: ,-- ,„. e
, .
7.. .......... ........................ .
i. .......
........s.,. ..•...
... •.:.,. :i :.:..:.:. ..i. ....... iiiil,..' .in.:a;../...".• . •'.4.I•'1•'11•,I •'.' •_• [••,
i--. ' .‘,. .4• .'. r./
.
• 1,-I
---c
-----'
'I' - .
-.--•?
Vii ., 111:VA A.I.N110:) -:-.1"11)V1 r '
lei . .0 trarommoomi In
ki.Nt ()D Mi11:11WD
•
. :I
ha
• ..
,:.1.• ..,- ,
.• 1, , ,..) 14„ .,•
•.___,,, '114...,...;
r.• - -- • :.0- •-----""-.. 0 '(
c/3 C/D
Ell
ta.4
-±;-
_• ••••••=0.11,1 Mmlnio•I ,_••••
- -
. •••
4.4rfir"0"."•••
: •:"
alir : • --,t-: ,J.
• ,*•'"
4„,.,:41. • 0
:.......:1:7„.
i..?
' • I 1 ' • _
•••,..
1
•.•
• \
•
• •
co a
PRIMARY TRAIL
4-1
I I
---- .1;
0. sc•
•
COMMFINIIY DEVELOPMFNE
1 EI'ARIMENE
(303) 310 8/30
[AGL[ COUNTY, COLORADO
Mark Bean
Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81603-3303
RE: Dakota South
Dear Mark & Dave:
500 BROADWAY
P.O. BOX 179
EAGLE. COLORADO 81631
FAX: (303) 328.7185
February 13, 1995
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above reference
proposal. The following comments are based upon previous referral
comments, our knowledge of the Dakota project and the Mid Valley
Community Master Plan and are not necessarily in any particular
order:
1.
It seems apparent that most of the traffic generated by
this development will utilize the access to the new Highway 82
by way of the Valley Road intersection immediately to the east.
This intersection has an extremely short stacking distance and
may be entirely inadequate for the generation of up to 800 trips
per day. A possible reworking of that intersection to provide
for proper stacking may he necessary. The applicant's engineer
should investigate this issue and the Eagle County Engineer
should be given the opportunity to comment since Eagle County
Road No. 3A will be directly impacted.
The original intent of the CDOT was to convert the old
Highway 82 into a local street accessing the existing homes in
this area. The road was also intended to function as a bikeway.
The proposed Dakota South densities and uses will increase the
trips generated in the immediate vicinity and may ultimately
have the effect of defeating the purpose of building the four -
lane highway in the first place. At a minimum, the proposal
should provide for the lost bike and pedestrian uses on the old
Highway 82 to Valley Road (3A).
2. On August 16, 1994, the Eagle County Board of County
Commissioners approved application 1041-026-94 (Resolution #95-
17). This application was for a major expansion of the Mid
Valley Metropolitan District's existing domestic water and
sewage treatment system and was for 120 EQR's (residential
equivalents). The County adopted these regulations pursuant to
IBB -1041 in order to insure that anticipated growth and
• •
Garfield County Planning
Dakota South
February 13, 1995
development that may occur as a result of such major extensions
can be accommodated within the financial and environmental
capacity of the new and source development areas for the purpose
of sustaining such growth and development. It is also another
tool by which the planned and orderly development of land can be
further insured.
As previously stated, this approval was for 120 EQR's. The
Dakota development to the north of Hwy 82 appears to already
have utilized 82 of those EQR's leaving 38 in reserve. It is
staff's interpretation and position that the Dakota South
proposal as submitted to you in a cover letter dated February 1,
1995, does not have sufficient water or sewer capacity by as
much as 42 units.
3. The Mid Valley Community Master. Plan makes the following
statement concerning density patterns:
High Density - 4-8 units per acre are concentrated around
the community centers within a 1/2 mile radius (ten minute
walking distance) minimizing the use of automobiles and
providing an efficient relationship between the highest
numbers of people and the required services.
The proposed project density is nearly 9 dwelling units per acre
which is an entirely inappropriate density this far outside of
an existing co►nmunity center. Such high densities should be
directed to existing community centers that are separated by
open space. This serves to enhance community identity and
decrease the visual and physical impacts on the scenic and
agricultural lands that characterize the Roaring Fork Valley.
This proposal does not promote any practical relationships
between land use, circulation, and community services by
concentrating growth where such services are most convenient and
efficient in their provision.
4. This proposal is also completely out of character with the
Dakota development north of Hwy 82 which is 1.6 dwelling units
per acre. Restricting the Dakota South proposal to the 38
maximum dwelling units allowed by the conditions of the 1041
approval would result in 4.2 DU's/acre in gross density. While
this would be half the proposed density, it is still more than
twice as dense as "Dakota North". Staff feels that development
on this "Parcel B" should be restricted to densities similar to
that which exist across highway 82 to the north.
5. An overriding goal of the Mid Valley Community Master Plan is
that of rural character preservation. One tool of that
preservation and recommended by the Plan is a 200' building and
parking setback adjacent to Highway 82. Development closer to
the highway detracts from the "experience" of rural character.
Also, using earthen berms as screening devices as proposed, is
quite strongly recommended against. It gives the impression of
"tunnelizing" highway 82.
• •
Garfield County Planning
Dakota South
February 13, 1995
6. Some additional miscellaneous comments are:
a. The applicant's statement in his cover letter of 60%
minimum open space is supported by neither his application
form nor his PUD Guide. Open space should be platted,
usable, contiguous and have provisions for maintenance.
Claiming that it will be landscaped does not necessarily
make it usable open space. Also, open space reserved for
access drives and parking as proposed in the PUD Guide is
not really open space. Such uses should be removed from
the definition of open space in the PUD Guide.
b. There are discrepancies between the PUD Guide and the Land
Use Summary. The PUD Guide lists maximum building square
footages by right totaling 140,000 sq. ft. while the Land
Use summary promises only 48,000 sq. ft. The two documents
also are not in agreement with regard to building height
restrictions. The Land Use Summary lists a 30' maximum
while the PUD Guide lists 35'.
c. We might suggest that since a PUD is being proposed that
2.5 parking spaces per unit be required. As an alternative
or even in addition, you may wish to consider an on-site,
screened storage area for vehicles, equipment or materials
normally associated with dwelling units.
d. It may also be prudent that the proposal provide for snow
storage.
e. Woodburning appliances of any kind should be prohibited.
Again, thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on
a proposal that will directly impact Eagle County. If we can be of
any further assistance concerning this issue, please feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Paul E. Clarkson AICD
Planner
cc:
Keith Montag
Sid Fox
George Roussos
Jim Fritze
chrono
• •
C.ANNi?'1"I' & SACKETT, LLC
Attorneys at Law
F'recicricic W. Gannett
111nrkc I1. Sackett
11ASAI,1'
Basalt Realty Bldg.
0206 Cody lane
Basalt. CO 81(121
(303) 927-4648
(303) 927-1125 Fox
February 23, 1995
yrA FAGSINUE
(303) 9,15-778=
Don DeFord, Esq.
Garfield County Attorney
109 8th Street.
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 816(1
David Michaelson
Garfield County Planner
109 8th Street, 10303
Glenwood Springs,Coloradr, 81601
Gentlemen;
ASPEN
Alpino Profeenional Bldg.
600 East Hopkins Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925-8378
It was a pleasure sleeting you at the meeting of the Board of Planning & Zoning
Commission held on February 8, 1995. I appeared on behalf of a group of land owners opposed
10 the Arnold Island Rezoning/PUf) request. Please consider this letter 119 a formal request to
reopen the Planning & Zoning Commission's approval of the Arnold Island Rezoning.
1 base my rc:goest. upon the following factors, which 1 believe, if investigated, \vi11 be
proven to be accurate.
1. 1v1r. 1'lichaelson's recitation to the Planning Sc Zoning Commission with regard to
the application was inaccurate, in at least three regards. Mr. Michaelson indicated that the Eagle
County Planning Department had been contacted wills regard to the rezoning request, which, in
fact, had not occurred. 1 spoke with Paul Clarkson, AICI', Eagle County Community
Development Department, and his supervisor, Keith Mor►lang, with regard to the Arnold
Rezoning request. Each indicated that their first contact with regard to this matter was a. letter
dated February 10, 1995. The date of that letter is three days subsequent to the rezoning meeting
before the Planning Sc. Zoning Commission. A copy of that leper is enclosed as Exhibit "A".
• •
-
Don DeFord, Esq.
David Ivlichnelson
February 23, 1995
Page 2
2. This is n significant. factor. Engle County's response to Mr. M.icltnelson's letter of
February 10, 1995, is a categorical opposition to the project. The Eagle County planners focused
on many of the same concerns raised by the shutting land owners, namely extraordinary density,
complications with the new and old Highway 82, deviation from the Mid -Valley Community
Master Plan with regard to density, lack of character with both the Dakota Development on north
1Iigllway 82, and the residential community on the south of 01(11 Iighway 82. NIr. Michaelson
represented to the Planning & Zoning Commission That Eagle Comity had been contacted and
hacl failed to respond in time for the February it hearing, Unfortunately, whatever reason, that
absolutely incorrect. Had the Planning Sz.-. Zoning Commission been apprised of Eagle County's
opposition to the aforementioned PUG, it may have significantly modified its approval, or
rejected the zoning request outright. Enclosed as Exhibit "11" is a copy of Eagle County's
response.
3. The next issue of significant concern is Iv(r. N'Iicl►aelson's definition of "changed
circumstances." I have conducted a significant amount of legal research into this area, including
speaking with planners for both Pitkin and Eagle Counties. Additionally, I met with the Eagle
County Attorney and contacted the Aspen City Attorney, the Pitkin County Attorney, and the
Colorado Municipal League. ivlr. ivlicltaclson contended that "tile availability of water arid sewer
for Mid -Valley Metropolitan District,'' was a "changed circumstance." 1 challenged that
contention in my remarks to the Commission. lvly research indicates that any change in zoning
must be predicated on the availability of water and sewer. By showing existing water extension
agreements with the Mid -Valley Metropolitan District, the applicant demonstrated (pati of this
will be refuted later) one of the necessary technical requirements for a change in zoning.
However, the "changed circumstances" is not a !unction of the sudden availability of water and
sewer, but an evaluation of the character of the abutting land atea. Arguing the availability of
water and sewer constitutes the "changed circumstances" is tantamount to putting the cart before
the horse. .Any subsequent legal challenge to this particular issue will show an absence of a
record on which to base either the Planning & Zoning Comntissinn's decision or, in the event the
County Commissioners go forward, their reliance on That aspect. I believe the record must
demonstrate sonic evidence of n changed cirencnslancc with regard to the character of the
surrounding land and not merely the availability of water and sewer.
4. I asked 11r. Ivlichaelson at the meeting if he had reviewed the documents
subinitted by the application demonstrating the availability of water and sewer. Mr. Michaelson
indicated to me that he had seen the water extension agreement and that the applicant had all of
the necessary approvals upon wlticlt to base his application. To that extent, I reviewed the
records of the Eagle County Attorney and il►e Community Developments office on Wednesday,
February 15, 1995. Enclosed is a copy of the 1041 review indicating that the applicant had been
granted 120 EQR capacity approval by the Eagle County Commissioners. In discussions with
Keith Montang and Paul Clark, 1 learned that Dakota North had used approximately 82 EQR
• Li J 1 I l l• 1, . / .1 .l 1 JI, J a1 — I 1 1._ J .. i. . .. .l. 1 .. 1.1— 1 1
Don DeFord, Esq.
David Michaelson
February 23, 1995
Page 3
allotted by the 1041 review process. fly my mathematical calculations, this leaves only 38 units
available for use at the Dakota Sonlh/Arnold island Rezoning location. Somehow this issue was
overlooked in a significant and detrimental manner. The absence of water and sewer will kill any
rezoning application, insofar as the applicant could not demonstrate a necessary technical
requirement. Mr. Michaelson pointed out to me in a meeting on February 23, 1995, that the 38
EQlt's is even more suspect, in that the underground water pipe sleeves are detective and ‘vil1
require significant costs to repair. None of this was provided to the Planning Commission.
5. Ld Podolak, in his opening comments to the Planning & Zoning Commission,
indicated that he desired to build an affordable employee grousing project. When asked by the
Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commission what this entailed, he indicated approximately
80 apartment units to be rented in the range of $600 to $1,000 per month. I do not recall, nor do
any of my clients in attendance at the meeting, nay mention of a PUD application having been
filed on or before Febntary 8, 1995. I was startled to learn, in n subsequent meeting between Ed
Podolak and the affected community, of the fact that the PUD application had been filed prior to
the February 8, 1995 meeting. Mr. Porlolak's failure to indicate to the Planning & Zoning
Commission the nature of the application is an intentional misrepresentation of a material fact.
IIad the Planning & Zoning Commission known that Mr. Podolak contemplated a mixture of fair
market and rental units, they may have been less persuaded by his appeal to the "community
need aspect" Of his project. Quite frankly, Mr. Podolak intends to sell each building to the
highest bidder, and obtain n fair market value for a return on Itis investment. He also intends, as I
understand, to offer rental management on the apartment units. Nothing in itis PUD application
substantiates his assertion that this will be an affordable employee housing amenity. This fact
was significant in determining the Planning & Zoning Commission's approval and any reliance
on those assertions without knowledge of the actual POD submittal is misleading.
I am not certain as to ]tow or why these misrepresentations or errors in the record carne to
be, but I know that they had a significant detrimental eflect on toy clients' interests. The fact that
Eagle.County had not been notified of the proposed zone change, the fact that its 1041 approval
only provides for 38 water taps in the proposed development, the fact that the Planning & Zoning
Cornrnission was not advised of Eagle County's opposition to the density and conformity to the
Mid -Valley Comprehensive Plan, and the fact that I believe Ind Podolak intentionally
misrepresented the scope and nature of his project in a deliberate attempt to obtain npproval only
on the professed desire to provide employee housing are material misrepresentations.
I understand the meeting before (he Planning & Zoning Commission was a "public
meeting" and not a "public hearing." However, the Planning & Commission is required to either
approve or reject the application as it climbs its way toward the public hearing before the Board
of County Commissioners. The public, in general, and my clients in particular, are entitled to a
• •
Don DeFord, Esq.
David Micltaelson
Febntary 23, 1995
Page 1
meeting at which all information necessary to process the application is received in a timely
manner, and at which all rept esenialions upon which the Board will rely to make its decision, are
accurate and contextually appropriate.
Mr. Micltaelson, in comments made to me and some of my clients after the meeting,
indicated very strongly that he had been mislead by the applicant in regard to promises
concerning community contact. They and 1 appreciate his sentiments and the time taken by hint
in explaining some of the processes that had occurred. However, I cannot ignore the fact that
Mr. Michaelson, himself, made continents to the Planning & Zoning Commission that turned out
to be erroneous and, at worst, provided the framework for a suspect approval. The applicant does
not have sufficient water within which to warrant his RID process, and the identification of
"changed circumstances" has not been met, neither under Mr. MiCllaelson's assessment nor my
own. If we were to rely on Mr. lvlichaelson's characterization of changed circumstances, we '
would have to insure that the water and sewer allocations are sufficient to support the proposed
build -out. We know this is not the case in this regard. The applicant has only, at best, 38 water
taps available for the Arnold Island Rezoning/PUD.
Please understand that 1 intend to raise these concerns before the next Planning & Zoning
Commission meeting on March 8, 1995, at X:00 p.m. f 1owever, i feel that it is entirely
inappropriate for the Board of County Commissioners to bring the rezoning application Forward
on March 7, 1995, at 2:0(1 p.m., when the tactors tl►at brought that application to its attention
were based upon inaccurate and misleading information. My clients will go forward with a 106A
for review in the event the County Commissioners approve the rezoning. 1 believe that we can
save the County and my clients significant money and aggravation by simply asking the Planning
& Zoning Commission to reopen its approval. In the event the applicant can clear up the
aforementioned problems, the record would be complete, accurate, and, theoretically, sustain any
approval.
In conclusion, I believe we all, as citizens, are participants in the process, and are entitled
to a fair hearing. This March 7, 1995, Planning & Zoning Commission could hardly be
described as fair, in light of the significant inaccuracies by boll) staff and applicant with regard to
Don 1)eFord, Esq.
David Michaelson
February 23, 1995
Page 5
the proposed change. I will he providing a copy of this letter to the Planning Sc. Zoning
Commission Chairman and the individual members in attendance. It is my (tope that all will
agree that another meeting is required, even if the ultimate result is the sante.
Sincerely,
GANN "!,TT & SACKETT, LLC
der ick W. Cielnneltc
FWG:l it
cc: Gerry Zamora
Commission Members present at the meeting:
Pat Fitzgerald, Chairman
lied) Nelson
Dick Stephenson
Phillip Vaughan
Jim Snyder
John Foulkrod
Karl Schesser
Newly appointed Members:
Steve Anthony
Stacy Ehlers
Anna Price
Cheryl Chandler
1�Ill..rl Jlu 121
• •
February 8, 1995
To: Garfield County Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Ray Meeks and Christine Lester
17451 Old Ilighway 82
Re: Rezoning of Bobby Arnold Property
This letter is written in protest against Bobby Arnold's petition to
rezone his acreage on old Highway 82 from residential/agricultural to multi-
unit housing. We have resided at our current address, in Garfield County,
for the past- thirteen years.
Right now our neighborhood along old Highway 82, and we really are a
neighborhood now, not a highway, is almost exclusively single family
dwellings. A lot of these hors sit on one, two or more acres of land.
In fact, if the Board had time, I think it would be very helpful to drive
through our neighborhood. I think it would be instantly clear why Mr. Arnold's
plan does not fit into the existing lifestyle and home -style that currently
exist. To throw a mass of apartment or condo type units into this setting
does not make sense in a neighborhood/community of single family dwellings.
I would like to see Mr. Arnold build single family hones on his property.
His argument- that no one wants to purchase a hcxnesite on that side of the
highway has been proven incorrect as hones for sale on "that" side of the
highway have been "snatched -up" rapidly by homeowners looking for a peaceful
neighborhood where they can raise their horses as well as their children.
This, to me, would be the simple solution for all. Mr. Arnold can make some
money and we can maintain the current atmosphere of the neighborhood.
There are many concerns I have about this proposal, but my primary two
involve safety...
With an increased volume of residents in a multi -unit housing project,
the access on and off Ilighway 82 would increase dramatically. With the
current low density hors and cars that exist, that hairpin turn off 82 onto
old 82 is delicate, to say the least. Increase traffic and people will be
hurt...or killed.
• Because a part of Mr. Arnold's land is in Garfield County, fire, ambulance
and police emergency staff and vehicles respond from Carbondale. You can tell
us that Basalt will respond but they don't and they won't!
Approximately two years ago, there was a head-on collision in front of
our hone at 17451 Old highway 82. We saw it happen. I called 911 and my
boyfriend ran outside to help. Ten minutes later, no one had responded so
I called 911 again. They told me that someone from Carbondale was on the way.
I begged them to call Basalt or El Jebel but they said that someone would be
there soon. I told them that one of the drivers was seriously hurt, maybe
• •
Page 2
I'm authorized to report to you that the following individuals
have reviewed this letter and agree with its content.
�o&y (-41c- // f GA1e//J
17711 NCO/ b'L__
C n �n cI (" ( C�
S) / 3
3y
a
• •
PER 7 1 0
t I/95
y 1-1, 1997
Gar f i 1 .1 7 (7.. ino,i i -L.!!
111:7; . 11FL i 1h
Puckey :"..rhane-
Mr. P.inc,ld
tJewoild appreciate your conc:ideratioh or the limilihg [ors
that e;:it. relative to real enlate developments up Foul Mile Road.
715 you know, thos of it; who live near !Iout.11 Gland hvenue are
alread: impacted ly heavy ttaffic al the Sunlight Bridge and the
24th Street stoplight. This situation will WOrS011 cohsidelaLly
upon completion of the now 4)1melitavy school i Glenwood Park.
The problem of water pply and the dangerous condition of the
Four Mile Foad are 1v i1; majoi facloin that will hopefully
mse you to deny 'lie proponed :lpringridge development and ahy
other development that is high density. We urge you to impose a
mratoritmion developments uhlil improvements to Fc,ul Mile Road ale
assured or .z,;.mpleAed, just until they ale studied.
Pleane. also. nr:e tliat huilders, reultots und
with conflicts of iiiteient are not •'1j' 11 ILthe ilanhihg
Commission.
Than): you.
1 .1 1
j/tp-c-A-
mi,h Troth
nyle11
2n2 Coopel CL.
lehwood _;pringn
•
TO Clic Nle_v Couce4A,L-
hrtitutec ._446 \ID -24
c(511,X 3
(iU o.
d
Vz
otp
q693 -t1/67
(*th' zy
/ ' bl Ze4 I-ta 7 _z--, <_, 0/
7d z L.ti (—<4/ ,k{-,,4)
4 7
U .,e -'?d �L-L, LLL
# / >1.--/,1 a ":'-'(,
,1-1---/4' ;nt‘;, .
())/'91/��'L2�r
//1
�Lc
JeZ
/L(1-3LL' C(�
(-q
//--/yAet42,,
"M-1-- et- --4/2-Z(---61-2L- -a„e2,
/1/1-4?7-61(-- COL1-4(.-/•._--/11 6-
-
e
(kk
���t j.,/W4
cC! ��.0%�aG
eezt(.-- 116/
JUS -
i
C G<c�1-t-Li.
/1
A.t �•� �C�� t c 1✓� �t�.
t a et-) /(gCY/ -
A e -t,.
• •
Page 2
Ieiter to Garfield County Planning & Zoning Conniss.i.on
dying!!! After a total of 15 -minutes had passed, I called the El Jebel Fire
Department and Lhe Basalt Police. They both told ane that it was up to
Carbondale to respond! Exactly 22 minutes later, an ambulance showed up.
The female driver was dead... I don't know if an emergency vehicle responding
from El Jebel or Basalt would have saved her life, but I've always wondered...
If Mr. Arnold is allowed to build quantity units on his property, the
need for more frequent assistance from the fire department, police department
and ambulance will increase by leaps and bounds. Are you, as a Board,
comfortable with the emergency services offered, when it comes down to
saving a life?
In closing, I'd like to reiterate my request to see Bobby Arnold build
single family homes on his property. It's appropriate. It flows with what
currently exists, and it's fair to all parties
Thank you for listening.
Sincerely, %
l`�J/'-
/ IA 1.4 k . / \ ,� .� . 1 � At.
Christine N. Lrester
Garfield County Resident
'Phomas ymond Meeks
Gar.fieli County Resident
CNL/cl
• e
• •
0094 Arlian Road
Carbondale, CO 81623
February 8, 1995
Garlielci County
Planning & Zoning Commission
Garfield County Courthouse
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Commission Members,
This letter concerns the proposed rezoning of the approximate 12 -acre Arnold property
located between 4 -lane 82 and the frontage road 82, at the extreme eastern end of
Garfield County, and partly in 1?agle County.
We feel that the current residential/rural zoning, suhdividable into two -acre parcels, is
most appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood, and we vigorously oppose the
proposal to change the zoning to allow the building of -high-density multi-lamily
dwellings at this location.
Yours sincerely,
James & Vanessa 13iehl
• •
February 8, 1995
Garfield County
Planning and Zoning Commission
Glenwood Springs, CO
To Whom it May Concern:
I am opposed to Mr. Arnold's request for change of zoning of that
portion of his parcel of land in Garfield County lying between
Highway 82 and the Highway 82 frontage road at the far eastern end
of the county. Any change in the current residential (ARRD) zoning
of the property would not comply with either the present or future
plans for the area as proposed by the County. The nature of the
existing community is low density residential. Any development
other than single family residences does not fit with the existing
community. I do not, however, oppose Mr. Arnold;s development of
this land under the current zoning.
A PUD has been approved for a large parcel of land in that same
area, just north of Iiighway 82 and west of the Blue Lake
Subdivision which will greatly increase access traffic at the Blue
Lake entrance. Additional development on Mr. Arnold's property on
the south side of Iiighway 82 would further congest that
intersection. The Colorado Department of Highways has defined that
four -lane portion of the Highway 82 corridor as limited access
highway. Mr. Arnold's request for change of zoning can only mean
he intends to change the low density parcel to medium or high
density and thereby create a greater strain on that particular
intersection. Though a traffic signal might be indicated to
control the traffic entering and exiting at that intersection, as
well as provide for greater safety, the Highway Department is
historically more than reluctant to install such a safety/traffic
flow apparatus. As seen at the Catherine Store intersection just
west of the Blue Lake entrance, the Highway Department has refused
to install a traffic signal there in spite of numerous serious
accidents which have occurred as a result of the absence of a
traffic signal and the public's support for such. Mr. Arnold's
possible medium or high-density development would create a second
dangerous intersection, with higher traffic, in a short stretch of
Highway 82.
I would ask that the County keep with its proposed zoning and use
of the Arnold property and deny this request for rezoning.
Thank you for your consideration. %
Cindy J. lldrstU
17335 Highway 82
Carbondale, CO 81623
I
• •
Feb. 8 1995
Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission:
Dear Sirs:
In 1982 our family bought property from Bob
Arnold, and moved to our present location, across
from the proposed re -zoned area. A major reason
for the move was to live in a rural uncongested area,
and we paid premium dollars for that privelege. We
also bought into a set of covenants, proposed by Mr.
Arnold, which prohibiited lot sizes smaller than 5 acres
or so.
Although we lived off of Highway 82, the Colorado
Highway Department had already approved a
route around the "island", eventually resulting in the
present traffic impact, which is low and extremely
desireable.
Mr. Arnold knew of the Highway Department's
plans when he bought the ranch to develope it , so
an argument that he has been wronged and deprived
by the new highway's present course is fallacious. He
has no right, morally, legally , or otherwise,to deprive us
of our neighborhood's character solely in an effort to
make undue amounts of money, at our expense.
Lastly, this is once again a pitch for illegal "spot
zoning".
7L
Shop and Mary Harris
98 Arlian Road
Garfield County
Carbondale, Co.
4
February 8, 1995
Re.
• •
Rezoning of Bob Arnold Property
Old Highway 82
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
To Whom It May Concern;
This letter is in regards Lo our direct opposition of rezoning of
the above captioned properly. We have resided at our present
residence for six years and we are deeply concerned over the
possibility of uncontrolled growth which could have a tramatic
negative impact on our neighborhood.
Since Iiighway 82 was reconstructed we have an actual neighborhood
which is relatively rural in character and creates a good quality
of living for us and our neighbors. To rezone this property to
multi -family will drastically alter the character of our
neighborhood by creating a measurable increase in the density of
cars, people, crime and smog and will have an adverse impact on
the privacy which we now enjoy.
The area in which this is being proposed is sandwiched between
two areas comprised of single family residences. To say that
there is no outside interest for single family construction is
erroneous as there has been single family residences built since
the reconstruction of 82 near the subject property.
There has been no attempt from the landowner or the developer to
communicate with the existing neighbors. They have attempted to
force the rezoning of this property without our prior knowledge.
It was merely circumstantial that we were able to find out about
their intentions Lo rezone. This is just another example of a
developer coming and forcing the change of character of our
neighborhood.
We ask that you strongly consider the negative impact this will
have on our neighborhood if you were to approve the request to
rezone this property and ask that you deny their request.
Thank you.
Joe an 5 rry Zamora
17453 Highway 82
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
i�
• •
P. 0. Box 28267
El Jebel, Co., 81628
February 28, 1995
Garfield Co. Commi srji oners
109 8th 3t.
Glenwood Springs, Co., 81601
Dear Commissioners,
We are opposed to the Arnold Island Rezoning;/PUD
proposal. The high density will impact the frontage road,
it is out of character with the surrounding neighborhoods,
and it is not in compliance with the Mid Valley ?Master Plan.
We ask that much study, thought and reconsideration be
given to this proposal.
Wane .nd ois Vagneur
60 Flying Fish Rd., Carbondale
cc:Garfield Co. Planning &, Zoning Commission
Garfield County Planning Department
Garfield Co. Attorney
•
February 27, 1995
Mr. Don DeFord, Esq.
Garfield County Attorney
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO.
81601
Dear Mr. DeFord:
•
The enclosed letter was sent by my wife and I to each County
Commissioner in the hope that there would be some way of
delaying the final decision on the re -zoning of the Arnold property.
As you can see from the letter we and many others in the
immediate vicinity of the property are very concerned about the
impact this type of rezoning and PUD of such high density will
have on our quality of life and the basic concept of the roaring fork
valley master plan.
I believe that the letter speaks for itself and there is no need for me
to reiterate all except to ask you to read the letter and to do all that
you can to postpone any final decision until the P&Z has a chance
to study the true facts of the proposal.
Thanking you in advance for your understanding and help I am
enc: (1)
mows—
Jack S. Wohlstadter, M.D.
14
•
February 27, 1995
Garfield County Commissioners
Garfield County Courthouse
Glenwood Springs, CO. 80601
Dear Gentlepersons:
•
Re: Arnold Property
Rezoning
My wife and I are residents in close proximity'to the property in
question. In recent hearings before the P & Z commission a
tentative approval was given for a proposed 80 unit development
on the property. In recent inquiries we have been advised that
misrepresentations may have occured. Through no fault of the
P&Z Commission, information given to them was falsely
presented.
It is in the best interest to all concerned, property owners and the
elected officials, to have all the truthful facts so that a decision may
be reached that satisfies not only the owner of the land in
question, but also the neighbors in the immediate area and to
some extent the Master Plan of the Roaring Fork Valley.
Because there was great disappointment exhibited at the last
meeting before the P&Z Commission the property owners were
advised to meet with the developers to see if some common
ground could be reached and a PUD that satisfied both parties be
approved. To this end we...the property owners, met with the
developer, Mr. E. Podolak on the night of the 13th of Feb. in El
Jebel. While some progress was made the developer was to
return on the 27th with an alternate plan/plans to present to the
property owners. Approximately 40 property owners in the area
arrived at the Community Hall in El Jebel at the time suggested by
Mr. Podolak, 6:30 pm, but he failed to attend the meeting.
iii17,-
• •
2.
Because of the severe high density increase proposed in the
PUD in a rural area that is currently zoned RA, and the addition of
approximately 80 families, 160 people, 160 automobiles and
trucks, it would appear that the P&Z Commission did not have the
correct facts at hand, to wit:
Eagle County was not contacted regarding the proposed rezoning.
Eagle County's reply to a letter from Mr. Michaelson was a
decided opposition to the project.
The zoning change request led the P&Z Commissioners to
assume that the adjacent lands and the surrounding properties
were undergoing some sort of change that thereby changed the
requirement for rezoning. This could not be farther from the truth!!!
Inadequate water taps remain for the nine acres to be rezoned
since 82 of the allotted 120 taps have already been used in the
'Dakota' PUD on the north side of Hwy. 82.
AH of the above plus additional problems are present that would
seem it only appropriate that the Garfield County Commissioners
move to 'table' this final decision until the P&Z and 'staff'
reevaluate the proposal in the true light of the situation.
Thanking you in advance for re-evaluating this most delicate
situation we are
Your constituency,
Jack S. Wohlstadter, M.D.
(ak(
Brenda Wohlstadter
1
f II�k UL LLH t_HN� 1: I H ._HL(J.L +
•
LEAVENWORTH & CALOIA,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH
SHERRY A. CALOIA
SAMUEL J. LIGHT
JEFFERSON V. HOUPT
CAROLYN M. STRAUTMAN
KENNETH R. MOTSENEOCKER
Don DeFord, Esq.
Garfield County Attorney
109 Eighth Street, Suite 300
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
March 2, 1995
•
1011 GRAND AVENUE
P-0. DRAWER 2030
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81002
TELEPHONE: (303)945-2281
FAX: (303) 945.7336
Re: Mid 'Vailey_M tro _olitan_laistrieVDakgt _S_auth _Proposal
Dear Don:
As the attorney for the Mid Valley Metropolitan District ("District"), I am writing to
advise you of the District's position with regard to the provision of water and sewer service to
the proposed Dakota development south of Highway 82. The District Board approved the
concept of service upon annexation, and it is the District's position that it currently has the
ability to provide 48.5 EQRs of service to the Dakota South project, without the need for
additional 1041 approval from Eagle County.
Eagle County approved the District's 1041 permit application (Resolution No. 95-17) in
August, 1994, for 120 EQRs of water and sewer service to the entire Dakota project property.
Dakota Partners has utilized 71.5 EQRs for single-family homes and townhouses located north
of Highway 82, based on the EQR values set forth in the District's Rules and Regulations. In
a letter dated February 13, 1995, Paul Clarkson of Eagle County stated that Dakota had utilized
82 of the 120 EQRs for the townhomes, leaving 38 EQRs in reserve. The reason for the
discrepancy in EQR values is that multi -family units are not assessed a full EQR under the
District's Rules and Regulations, and the figure provided by Eagle County fails to reflect this
factor.
In the event that the Dakota South development requires an increase in service of more
than nine (9) EQRs, the District may have to amend the 1041 permit, for a modification of its
service plan. Dakota Partners has evidenced an intent to pay for all procedures required to
obtain 1041 approval from Eagle County. With regard to the pending application for rezoning,
one option is for Garfield County to make its approval of the application conditional on the
District obtaining any necessary 1041 approvals from Eagle County.
F:1FILES1DEFORD,2LT
h1HR O ' 95 10: LOAM LEHVEH RTH2CHLOIH • F-' . 3
LEAVENWORTH & CALOIA, P,C,
Don DeFord, Esq.
Page 2
March 2, 1995
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWORTH & CALOIA, P.C.
LEL:11n
cc: Kelly Mullane -Johnson
Steve Isom
Ed Podolak
Louis Meyer
F: \FILES\DEFORD, 2LT
1'10R-03-1995 16:49
FROM THE D[nu or;
LAWRECNCE R. GREEN
ROBERT DELflHEY 303 945 2303 P.02/03
• •
DELANEY & BALCOMLI,
ATTORNI.vS AT LAW
DRAWER 90
GLENWOOP SPRINGS, CO 81602
March 3, 1995
SENT VIA FAX TO 927-1125
(ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW BY MAIL)
Frederick W. Gannett, Esq.
Gannett & Sackett LLC
0206 Cody Lane
Basalt, CO 81621
Re: Arnold Island
Dear Fred:
eI 9 Coi_onwoo AvgNV IG
TC�GPH ONE 30a-O4es-es 4e
TELEcertCPI ; .3O3-045.8GO2
As we have discussed, I represent Robert and Gloria Arnold.
The Arnolds had an Agreement with Ed Podolak which authorized
Mr. Podolak to make a Zoning/Land Use Application to Garfield
County for the Arnold Island. Under this agreement the Arnolds
were made aware of the contents of the Zoning and PUD Applications
that were filed, but they had no right to direct or control either
the relief requested by the Applications, or the manner in which
the Applications were presented and pursued.
Under the Agreement, Mr. Podolak was also given the
opportunity under certain circumstances to withdraw from his
arrangement with the Arnolds. On Tuesday, February 28, 1995, Mr.
Podolak advised the Arnolds and me that the circumstances were such
that he wished to exercise his right of withdrawal under the
Agreement.
Since Tuesday, the Arnolds and I have been scrambling to try
to understand exactly what has happened with the Arnold Island
proposals over the last several weeks and to determine the most
appropriate course of action for the Arnolds. As I advised you
earlier today by telephone, the Arnolds have now made the following
decisions:
MAR -03-1995 16:49
Frederick W. Gannett, Esq.
March 3. 1995
Page 2
ROBERT DELANEY 303 945 2303 P.03/03
• •
First, the PUD Application for an 80 -unit development on the
Arnold Island which was scheduled for review by the Garfield County
Planning & Zoning Commission on Wednesday, March 8, 1995, has been
withdrawn.
Second, on Monday, March 6, 1995, on behalf of the Arnolds, I
will appear before the Garfield County Board of County
Commissioners at the public hearing now scheduled for the pending
zone change request. At that time, I will ask that the Board of
Commissioners continue said public hearing until a date certain,
approximately 45 to 60 days hence. The Arnolds will use that time
period to learn precisely what has happened over the course of the
Zone Change Application process, to better understand the concerns
of your clients, and to determine how the Arnolds wish to proceed
with their property.
I hope that the Arnolds request to continue the public hearing
is consistent with your clients' goal to have additional
consideration given to development on the Arnold Island. Please
feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss this matter in any
way.
LRG:bd
cc: Bob & Gloria Arnold (FAX 602-516- d15)
Ed Podolak (FAX 925-1630)
Don DeFord (FAX 945-7785)
Dave Michaelson (FAX 945-7785)
Very truly yours,
DELANEY & BALCOMB, P.C.
Lawren R. Green
TOTAL P.03
ao
• •
ISOM & ASSOCIATES
Architecture Land Planning Project Management
/1?3
7-(3 szdta
7itz, 67-4: �-,�-
0-1
�c�Lcy-;Care—
'TL
/�-..� )4Z/4 `Z / /9 Y
P.O. Box 9 Eagle, Colorado 81631
(303) 328-2388 FAX 328-6266
•
GANNETT & SACKETT, LLC
Attorneys at Law
Frederick W. Gannett
Mark H. Sackett
BASALT ASPEN
Basalt Realty Bldg. Alpine Professional Bldg.
0206 Cody Lane 600 East Hopkins Ave.
Basalt, CO 81621 Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 927-4646 (303) 925-8378
(303) 927-1125 Fax
March 4, 1995
The Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County
Garfield County Courthouse
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
Re: Arnold Island Zone Change Application
Dear Commissioners:
My law office represents a large group of affected landowners near or abutting the Arnold
Island parcel currently subject to a zone change application before the Board. Members of the
Board may have received letters and other communications from my clients regarding this
matter.
We have been informed that the developer, Ed Podolak, has withdrawn his PUD
application and has cancelled his development option with the owner of the property, Bob
Arnold. Larry Green, Esq., attorney for Bob Arnold, wrote me to explain that Mr. Arnold has
requested the Board table the zone change hearing for 45 - 60 days, so as to allow an opportunity
to meet with affected neighbors and ponder the future. I, on behalf of my clients, respectfully
join in Mr. Arnold's request for a tabling of that action for 45 - 60 days.
However, we also respectfully reserve the right to request at the next hearing that the
matter be returned to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a re -meeting. We believe that the
initial meeting was significantly flawed in material aspects of both staffs and the developer's
presentations. Enclosed is a copy of my letter to Don DeFord and David Michaelson regarding
those concerns. My partner, Mark Sackett will be present at the March 6, 1995 hearing to
formally present this request.
My clients and I wish to thank Dave Michaelson for his cooperation and willingness to
hear our concerns. While we do not agree on some of the matters in this zone change
application, Dave has been significantly open to discussion and helpful in obtaining materials
central to this issue.
• •
LETTER TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY
Regarding Hearing set for Monday, March 6, 1995
Thank -you for your consideration.
jcerely
Fred G ne
FWG/fg
cc: Neighborhood Committee
Larry Green, Esq.
arnold.lel
MAR -03-1995 16:49
FROM TH! Otto( or;
LAWRENCE R. OREEN
ROBERT DELANEY 303 945 2303 F.02iO3
• •
DELANEY & BALCOMi3, P.C.
ATTORNi�.k S AT LAW
DRAWER : An
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602
March 3, 1995
SENT VIA FAX TO 927-1125
(ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW BY MAIL)
Frederick W. Gannett, Esq.
Gannett S Sackett LLC
0206 Cody Lane
Basalt, CO 81621
Re: Arnold Island
Dear Fred:
el b coLonAno AvENv L
TE PHONE 30.3-446-65 41S
Tf fee I len; .303-9 45•800 2
As we have discussed, I represent Robert and Gloria Arnold.
The Arnolds had an Agreement with Ed Podolak which authorized
Mr. Podolak to make a Zoning/Land Use Application to Garfield
County for the Arnold Island. Under this agreement the Arnolds
were made aware of the contents of the Zoning and PUD Applications
that were filed, but they had no right to direct or control either
the relief requested by the Applications, or the manner in which
the Applications were presented and pursued.
Under the Agreement, Mr. Podolak was also given the
opportunity under certain circumstances to withdraw from his
arrangement with the Arnolds. On Tuesday, February 28, 1995, Mr.
Podolak advised the Arnolds and me that the circumstances were such
that he wished to exercise his right of withdrawal under the
Agreement.
Since Tuesday, the Arnolds and I have been scrambling to try
to understand exactly what has happened with the Arnold Island
proposals over the last several weeks and to determine the most
appropriate course of action for the Arnolds. As I advised you
earlier today by telephone, the Arnolds have now made the following
decisions:
MAR -03-1995 16:49
Frederick W. Gannett, Esq,
March 3, 1995
Page 2
ROBERT DELANEY 303 945 23133 P.03/03
• •
First, the PUD Application for an 80 -unit development on the
Arnold Island which was scheduled for review by the Garfield County
Planning & Zoning Commission on Wednesday, March 8, 1995, has been
withdrawn.
Second, on Monday, March 6, 1995, on behalf of the Arnolds, I
will appear before the Garfield County Board of County
Commissioners at the public hearing now scheduled for the pending
zone change request. At that time, I will ask that the Board of
Commissioners continue said public hearing until a date certain,
approximately 45 to 60 days hence. The Arnolds will use that time
period to learn precisely what has happened over the course of the
Zone Change Application process, to better understand the concerns
of your clients, and to determine how the Arnolds wish to proceed
with their property.
I hope that the Arnolds request to continue the public hearing
is consistent with your clients' goal to have additional
consideration given to development on the Arnold Island. Please
feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss this matter in any
way.
LRG:bd
cc: Bob & Gloria Arnold (FAX 602-516- 15
Ed Podolak (FAX 925-1630)
Don DeFord (FAX 945-7785)
Dave Michaelson (FAX 945-7785)
Very truly yours,
DELANEY & BALCOMB, P.C.
Lawren '°` R. Green
TOTAL P.05
March 3, 1995
S C LJ L P T LJ R E
MAR 0 6 1995
LIARIF Cup C4X 4Ty
County Commissioner's, Garfield County
Marion Smith
Arnold Markley
Buck Arbaney
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601-3303
My husband, Gene Adcock, and I are long-time residents and sculptors living
within one-half mile of the proposed Amold/Podolak development. We would like to go
on record as voting residents of Garfield County who are opposed to the rezoning and
dense development application and urge you to look carefully at some of it's particulars
and in turn deny their application.
First of ail, this type of "project" is in a neighborhood of single family homes which
feels totally out of character and is unusually different from anything in the area. With the
rural quality of life here, being two miles form the EI Jebel intersection,.it does not seem
appropriate.
Secondly, the impact of traffic at the intersection of Valley Road and Highway 82
will become dangerous due to the size and density of this "project," and we feel that if it
goes forward CDOT should be approached and urged to make effort to put a traffic light
there.
Thirdly, we understand and agree with the county's need for affordable housing,
and we are not using "Nimby" psychology, but in our first community meeting with Mr.
Podolak, he indicated that he will have no control of prices upon completion and has no
intention of putting into place any deed restrictions or covenants to control rents. it can
be assumed, therefore, that rents will then rise as they have all over the valley. He also
said at the meeting that he could not cut the project back and make a profit. I hope you
will consider these two things and realize that we as a community feel exploited by his
need to make such a big profit. We suggest that he .consider building single family
homes on the site to make a reasonable profit being sensitive to harmony within the
existing community. He wrote everything down, yet did not show up for the next meeting,
one that he scheduled.
Fourthly, we as a neighborhood feel that we have been subjected to some form
of scheme "to get even" with us as was over heard coming from Mr. Arnold and then
suggested in the daily newspapers, and that with the latest revelation of insufficient water
rights from Mid -Valley Metro leads us to believe that there has been some gross
misrepresentation here.
0278 RONCE LANE, CARBONDALE COLORADO 81623 (303) 963-0103
• •
Fifthly, Mr. Podolak stated that his Dakota Subdivision now has become a
subdivision of "luxury hornet and we feel that since that is already in process, so be it, but
we would sincerely hope that he can be persuaded to listen to reason and come forth
with a sympathetic plan not only for our neighborhood but also by showing some passion
for our valley and some vision for it's future. Developers hold aur future in their hands,
and we would all praise them highly if they could demonstrate the foresight that our
forefathers used to shape our future by treasuring the natural rural beauty of our valley.
Perhaps, they might make a little less money, but I would think that they could hold their
heads higher and feel more pride in their hearts.
Lastly, at the P and Z meeting last February, it was stated that Eagle County had
not replied with an opinion on the project. I have in front of me a, a very conscious and
thoughtful letter from Paul Clarkson to Mark Bean and Dave Michaelson stating clear
opposition to such a dense project and stating the "overriding goal of the Mid -Valley
Community Master Plan is that of rural character preservation."
Our goal, here in the mid -valley, as a community, is not to oppose development
on Mr. Arnold's island but to protect the rural atmosphere here. For this reason alone,
we urge you to give long and thoughtful consideration to our request.
Respectfully,
l
Jeanie Renchard
Gene Adcock
cc: Paul B. Clarkson
Dave Michaelson
Mark Bean