HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 02.08.1995PC 2/8/95
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
R EQU EST: Zone District Change from A/R/RD
to R/G/UD
APPLICANT: Bob Arnold/Ed Podolak
LOCATION: A parcel of land located in Section
33, T7S, R87W, more practically
described as a tract of land between
the old and new State Highway 82
alignment, at the Eagle/Garfield
County Line.
SITE DATA: 9 acres
WATER: Mid -Valley Metro District
SEWER: Mid -Valley Metro District
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
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The tract of land is located in District C, Rural Areas, Minor Environmental
Constraints and District F, Rural Areas, Moderate Environmental Constraints.
H. DESCRIPTION OF THF PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The subject parcel is primarily historic agricultural land, which
has been bisected from the larger parcel to the north by the State Highway 82
right-of-way. The current alignment of SH 82 has created two geographically
separate parcels: an 11.761 acre parcel on the south side of the new four -lane;
and a 28.331 acre parcel to the north of the new four -lane. The north parcel was
approved for 48 multi -family and 16 single-family homes in 1994. The single-
family portion of the project has been final platted.
The southern parcel (subject to the rezoning request) is located between the old
and new SH 82, and includes numerous outbuildings and three mobile homes.
Representations by the applicant indicate that the two acre parcel occupied by
s J so
• •
the old homestead will remain under A/R/RD zoning.
C. Request. The applicants are requesting a zone district amendment for the
eastern -most nine (9) acres from A/R/RD (Agricultural/Residential/Rural
Density to R/G/UD (Residential/General/Urban Density). The applicant's cover
letter is attached on pages and a vicinity ma is shown on page 1 . The
zoning text for R/G/UD is shown on pages •f
The R/G/UD zone district has a 7,500 square foot minimum lot size, which
represents the densest residential zone district allowed in the County
independent of the PUD process. Assuming a 20 percent reduction for utilities,
roads, and a required setbacks, a maximum single-family buildout for the 9.0
acre parcel would be approximately 42 dwelling units. Staff notes that the intent
of the applicant is a multi -family project, with an undefined number of dwelling
units.
D. PUD Request. Section 4.07.06 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations
reads as follows:
"The overall residential density shall be no greater than four (4) dwelling units
per acre within the PUD; provided however that , that the County
Commissioners may allow an increase to a maximum of fifteen (15) dwelling
units per gross acre in areas where public water and sewer systems, owned and
operated bya municipal government orspecial district (as defined by Section 32-
1-103 (20), CR .S.) are readily avialable, and the prior zone district allowed
residential densities greater than four(4) dwelling units per acre, such densities
beingdetermined by reference to the maximum lot coverage, minimum setback,
maximum floor area ratio, maximum building height and parking standards of
such zone classification."
In order to pursue multi -family housing on the parcel, the applicants must
rezone the parcel to a zone district that will allow densities greater than those
defined in Section 4.07.06 with respect to the current underlying zoning
(A/R/RD).
III_ MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Applicable State Regulations. State statute emphasizes two (2) standards to
assist local review of rezoning applications. The first is that the change must be
for the public good, not merely for the benefit of certain individuals. The second
premise requires a change of circumstance which would warrant re-evaluation
of the existing zoning and necessitate changes to accommodate that public need.
Change for the Public Good. Discussions with the applicant have indicated an
intent to provide multi -family uses on the parcel. Staff has repeatedly voiced
support for multi -family uses in the valley, from both an affordable housing
perspective and as an efficient use of lard.
Change of Circumstance. At the time I he County approved A/R/RD zoning for
the Arnold parcel, no central water orsewerconnection was contemplated to the
Mid -Valley facility. The entire parcel has been annexed into the Mid Valley
Metropolitan District for both domostic water and waste water facilities. This
is a clear change in circumstance from the adoption of A/R/RD zoning for the
property.
• •
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 Adjacent Land Uses. Uses adjacent to the parcels include the
previously approved Dakota Subdivision on the north side of State Highway 82,
the Blue Lake Subdivision to the northeast, and low-density residential uses to
the south. Depending on final design components, the proposed density may be
consistent with the adjacent Dakota Subdivision. Staff notes that the applicant
must address compatibility issues with the residential units to the south.
Public Health, Safety and Welfare. The term "public health, safety and welfare"
is an all encompassing term which includes issues such as traffic, quality of life,
visual impacts, water and air quality, etc.. Staff notes that many of these issues
will be addressed at the PUD stage. For the purposes of a rezoning application,
the provision of multi -family housing appears consistent with the need for
affordable housing and efficient use of land.
The Planning Commission and staff have discussed issues related to housing
affordability within the Comprehensive Plan process. Information contained
with the proposed plan ("Background Information") summarizes housing costs
throughout the upper valley region. Based on data from the Board of Real
Estate, the average price of a home from Glenwood Springs east was
approximately $200,000.
Based on commonly applied mortgage underwriting standards used for
calculating housing affordability indices, at the prevailing interest rate of 9.25
percent, a household can afford a home costing 2.8 times their annual income.
This factor assumes little or no debt load. With an average household income
of $29,176 (U.S. Census), the average household within the County can afford
a home costing $81,700. The opportunities for such a home are isolated to the
far western portion of the County, further separating residents from employment
opportunities.
C. Court Precedence. Court cases have generally required the following findings
to uphold a rezoning decision: change in circumstance to justify rezoning;
existing zoning in error; or consistency with local land use plan designation.
Change in Circumstance. As cited earlier, the expansion of the Mid Valley
Metropolitan District, as well as the physical provision of water and sewer
services, clearly is consistent with densities higher than allowed under A/R/RD
zoning.
Error in Zoning. Staff would suggest that this provision is not applicable to the
application.
Consistency with Land Use Plan. The proposed Comprehensive Plan for the
Roaring Fork Valley identifies the parcel as "High Density Residential", due to
proximity of central water and sewer services.
• •
IV. SUGGESTED FINDIN
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 proposed zoning is in the best interests of the public health, safety and
welfare of citizens of Garfield County.
V_ RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed zone district amendment. State Statute does
not allow conditions of approval to be placed on zone district amendment .
Staff would recommend that the proposed PUD address the following issues in the design of
the subdivision:
1. That the open space provisions within the PUD be used to buffer the proposed units
from the lower density uses south of old SF1 82.
2. That the applicant pursue a community outreach approach prior to final design to
address issues raised by adjacent residents.
3. The applicant consider berming and landscaping the frontage with old 82, and that the
PUD application include a landscaping plan to assist the County and adjacent land
owners in reviewing the PUD.
4. The proposed access plan is designed to be compatible with existing driveways and
accessways to residential uses south of the proposed PUD.
. 1 M
o s�, ` N sTS-T \ K1M J 11
"P-47-45 - c_o-v4.1,A.t.t
j
�� trR-:,-5„ - fir] ok L� �l J
e�� _� D c"�0R�j
6 U
>si ,per
ao
8 February 1995
• •
ISOM & ASSOCIATES
Architecture Land Planning Project Management
Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street
Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3303
RE: Dakota South
Dear Dave:
Attached is a revised legal description for Dakota South. This is the same legal description that
was submitted to the Glenwood Post. Please modify your records accordingly. The area is the
same but the configuration is different to match the PUD application.
Sincerely yours,
Stephen R. Isom
cc.: Ed Podolak
9419dave
P.O. Box 9 Eagle, Colorado 81631
(303) 328-2388 FAX 328-6266
• •
EXHIBIT A
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
PARCEL B
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN LOTS 4 AND 6, THE NW1/4SE1/4, THE
S1/2NE1/4 AND IN THE SE1/4NW1/4NE1/4 OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 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 THE 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 _PAINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE N 72°10'33" W ALONG
SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY 770.75 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID
NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY N 01°28'48" E 487.72 FEET; THENCE
N 72°44'00" W 169.32 FEET; THENCE N 88°31'12" W 86.50 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN RECEPTION
NO. 205501 OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE;
THENCE N 01°28'48" E ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID RECEPTION NO.
205501 153.87 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF NEW
HIGHWAY 82; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE ALONG THE ARC OF A
CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2774.79 FEET AND A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 13°21'34", A DISTANCE OF 646.99 FEET (CHORD BEARS
S 64°00'50" E 645.52 FEET); THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY
RIGHT-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 RIGHT-OF-WAY S 00°00'20" W ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE
353.34 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID PARCEL CONTAINING
9.001 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
• r
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 TOWNHOMES 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/ m - Realdential/Genar .1LUrban_De_nsi .v
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.
Podolak Real Estate & Investment, Inc.
P () Box 5003 • Aspen, Colorado 81612-500.3 • (LVnv,9',.1•51 mT})`¢ X331
• •
Mr. Mark Bean
Page Two
If you have any questions, please contact me at the following:
Ed Podolak
720 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-0577
Since 'ly
-, 2 70e1/
Ed P..olak
EJP/pk
Enclosure
. 4
'66
'65
15.
3
29\i \\-.
K --L__;-- ---
__...„
700 . '. - :'r—r=":..---., _"--___.:il .: -- ,:rr.---: ' -"". . -----.;:';/-r-•\ is."
'7. 1 \:‘,_ :••••••, -..2..----• )•:1!t..--..;/
-- _— \ - -- =-
-----
;"----:,-17--.--
--\\.—_-------1 ---51--------;-_,---, N,
71 (01
-
‘'
1,N
. • .
.7,7? ,Y •
• ;11 - . \ N i *. • ../ -- - -
28 1 \ -: i)
I ) -- ( _
I,,
• 0
• - •
32
33
• I
1
-•
6 409. .
' •
•?
162'\\5';L/_
t X)
2
'61
'1"
.(4)/
\u1'11.
u,.
8M
640
6600
r
6' 5'
r-/
s•.„1„,
( /7\
•
2‘.
R/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 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, clay nursery and school.
3.05.03 Uses special: Mobile home park, water impoundments, utility Tines. (A.
81-145; 86-09)
3.05.04 Minimum Lori Area: Twenty thousand (20,000) square feet and as further
provided under Supplementary Regulations.
3.05.05 Maximum Lot Coverage: Thirty-five percent (35%).
3.05.06
Minimum Setback:
(1) Front yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feet from street
centerline or fifty (50) feet from front Tot line, 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 line;
(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 Maximum height oI' Buildings: Twenty-five (25) feet.
3.05.08 Maximum Floor Arca Ratio: 0.25/1.0 and as further provided under
Supplementary Regulations.
3.05.09 Additional Requirements: All uses shall be subject to the provisions
under Section 5 (Supplementary Regulations).
IL&
3.06 R/G/UD -- RESIDENTIAL/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 property 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;
home occupation; church, community building, day nursery and school.
,51
24
gob
•
R/G/UD -- Residential/General/Urban Density 3.06.03
3.06.03 Uses, special: 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)
3.06.04 Minimum Lot Area: Seven thousand five hundred (7500) square feet and
as further provided under Supplementary Regulations.
3.06.05 Maximum Lot Coverage: Fifty percent (50%).
3.06.06 Minimus) Setback:
(1) Front yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feet from street
centerline or fifty (50) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; (b)
local streets: fifty (50) feet from street centerline or twenty-five (25) feet
from lot line, whichever is greater;
(2) Rear yard: 'Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line;
(3) Side yard: ]'cn (10) feet from side lot line or one-half (1/2) the
height of the principal building, whichever is greater.
3.06.07 Maximum Ileight of Buildings: "Twenty-five (25) feet.
3.06.08 Maximum Floor Area Ratio: 0.50/1.0 and as further provided under
Supplementary Regulations.
3.06.09 Additional Requirements: All uses shall be subject 10 the provisions
under Section 5 (Supplementary Regulations).
3.07 C/L -- COMMERCIAL/LIMITED
3.07.01 Uses, by_right: Single-family, two-family and multiple -family dwelling, and
customary accessory uses including building for shelter or enclosure of
animals or property accessory to use of the lot for residential purposes
and fences, hedges, gardens, walls and similar landscape features; park;
boarding and rooming house; hotel, motel, lodge;
Church, community building, day nursery and school; auditorium, public
building for administration, fraternal lodge, art gallery, museum, library;
Hospital, 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:
25