Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationqZ3--- 16-5 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/G/UD - Residential/General/Urban Density 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for $500.00 made to Garfield County Treasurer was included with the May 9, 1994 application for a P.U.D. that has been withdrawn. Please advise if that fee could now be used for this application. Also included are the zone district maps showing the project location and a list of adjacent property owners. Podolak Real Estate & Investment, Inc. P.O. Box 5003 • Aspen, Colorado 81612-5003 • Min2533CUr"d `a$ _`$. Y: YS{ • • 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 EJP/pk Enclosure • • PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that BOB AND GLORIA ARNOLD (Podolak Real Estate and Investment, Inc.) have applied to the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to allow a zone district amendment in connection with the following described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit: Legal Description: See Exhibit A Practical Description: Located on the south side of State Highway 82, between the old and new State Highway alignment, approximately five (5) miles east of Carbondale. Said zone district amendment is to allow the Petitioners to rezone from A/R/RD (Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density) to R/G/UD (Residential/General/Urban Density) on the above described property. All persons affected by the proposed zone district amendments are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objections to such zone district amendments, as the Board of County Commissioners will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for a zone district amendment. This zone district amendment application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning Department located at 109 8th Street, Suite 303, Garfield County Courthouse, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. That public meeting on the application for the above zone district amendments has been set for the 6th day of March, 1995, at the hour of 2:00 p.m., at the office of the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County Courthouse, Suite 301, 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Planning Department Garfield County • • DAKOTA SOUTH TOWNHOMES 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 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 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 THE 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 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 9.01 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. DECEMBER 29, 1994 9419LEGL A/R/RD • 0 29 29 I O - .7 • r 32 • 4 • • r1� 1.:<:...., .-I .04ffi -------._,\_:::N1 N.) �L.--/gyp; iti 1. . L.N.,ISt� .. ti. \O .. :N§07,7 c , t:,,, . f: (1 t.(.(- ` ( re 11. .',-l-�+f� :� - 701-111--167 6600, S 02/23/95 THU 16:00 FAX 1 303 927 1125 GANNETT & SACIiETT LLC • • GANNETT & SACKETT, LLC Attorneys at Law Frederick W. Gannett Mark H. Sackett BASALT Basalt Realty Bldg. 0206 Cody Lane Basalt, CO 81621 (303) 927-4646 (303) 927-1125 Fax February 23, 1995 VIA FA $1MJLE (303) 945-7785 Don DeFord, Esq. Garfield County Attorney 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 David Michaelson Garfield County Planner 109 8th Street, #303 Glenwood Springs,. Colorado 81601 2001 ASPEN Alpine Professional Bldg. 600 East Hopkins Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 926-9378 Gentlemen: It was a pleasure meeting 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 to the Arnold Island Rezoning/PUD request. Please consider this letter as a formal request to reopen the Planning & Zoning Commission's approval of the .Arnold Island Rezoning. I base my request upon the following factors, which 1 believe, if investigated, will. be proven to be accurate. 1. Mr. Michaelson's recitation to the Planning & 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 with regard to the rezoning request, which, in fact, had not occurred. I spoke with Paul Clarkson. AICP, Eagle County Community Development Department, and his supervisor, Keith Montang, 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 & Zoning Commission. A copy of that letter is enclosed as Exhibit "A". 02/23/95 THU 15:05 FAX 1 303 927 1125 Don DeFord, Esq. David Michaelson February 23, 1995 Page 2 GANNETT & SACKETT LLC 2002 • • 2. This is a significant factor_ Eagle County's response to Mr. Michaelson'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 abutting 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 Highway 82, and the residential community on the south of old Highway 82. Mr. Michaelson represented to the Planning & Zoning Commission that Eagle County had been contacted and had failed to respond in time for the February 8 hearing, Unfortunately, whatever reason, that absolutely incorrect. Had the Planning & Zoning Commission been apprised of Eagle County's opposition to the aforementioned PUD, it may have significantly modified its approval, or rejected the zoning request outright. Enclosed as Exhibit "B" is a copy of Eagle Comity's response. 3. The next issue of significant concern is Mr. Michaelson'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. Mr. Michaelson contended that "the availability of water and sewer for Mid -Valley Metropolitan District,'' was a "changed circumstance." I challenged that contention in my remarks to the Commission. My 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 (part of this will be refuted later) one of the necessary technical requirements for a change in zoning. However, the "changed circumstances" is not a function of the sudden availability of water and sewer, but an evaluation of the character of the abutting land area_ 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 Commission's decision or, in the event the County Commissioners go forward, their reliance on that aspect. I believe the record must demonstrate some evidence of a changed circumstance with regard to the character of the surrounding land and not merely the availability of water and sewer. 4. I asked Mr. Michaelson at the meeting if he had reviewed the documents submitted 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 which to base his application. To that extent, I reviewed the records of the Eagle County Attorney and the 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, I learned that Dakota North had used approximately 82 EQR 02.23/95 THU 15:06 FAX 1 303 927 1125 GANNETT & SACKETT LLC 003 • • Don DeFord, Esq. David Michaelson February 23, 1995 Page 3 allotted by the 1041 review process. By my mathematical calculations, this leaves only 38 units available for use at the Dakota South/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 EQR's is even more suspect, in that the underground water pipe sleeves are defective and will require significant costs to repair. None of this was provided to the Planning Commission. 5. Ed Podolak, in his opening comments to the Planning & Zoning Commission, indicated that he desired to build an affordable employee housing 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, any mention of a PUD application having been filed on or before February 8, 1995. I was startled to learn, in a subsequent meeting between Ed Podolak and the affected conununity, of the fact that the PUD application had been filed prior to the February 8, 1995 meeting. Mr. Podolak's failure to indicate to the Planning & Zoning Commission the nature of the application is an intentional misrepresentation of a material fact. Had 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 a fair market value for a return on his investment. He also intends, as I understand, to offer rental management on the apartment units. Nothing in his 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 PUD submittal is misleading. I am not certain as to how or why these misrepresentations or errors in the record came to be, but I know that they had a significant detrimental effect on my 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 Commission 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 Ed Podolak intentionally misrepresented the scope and nature of his project in a deliberate attempt to obtain approval only on the professed desire to provide employee housing are material misrepresentations. I understand the meeting before the 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 02/23/95 THU 15:06 FAX 1 303 927 1125 GANNETT & SACKETT LLC • • • Don DeFord, Esq. David Michaelson February 23, 1995 Page4 meeting at which all information necessary to process the application is received in a timely manner, and at which all representations upon which the Board will rely to make its decision, arc accurate and contextually appropriate. Mr. Michaelson, 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 I appreciate his sentiments and the time taken by him in explaining some of the processes that had occurred. However, I cannot ignore the fact that Mr. Michaelson, himself, made comments 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 PUD process, and the identification of "changed circumstances" has not been met, neither under Mr. Michaelson's assessment nor my own. If we were to rely on Mr. Michaelsons 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 I intend to raise these concerns before the next Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on March 8, 1995, at 5:00 p.m. However, I feel that it is entirely inappropriate for the Board of County Commissioners to bring the rezoning application forward on March 7, 1995, at 2:00 p.m., when the factors that 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. I 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 both staff and applicant with regard to E1004 02/23/95 THU 15:07 FAX 1 303 927 1125 GANNETT & SACItETT LLC • • Don DeFord, Esq. David Michaelson February 23, 1995 Page 5 the proposed change. I will be providing a copy of this letter to the Planning & Zoning Commission Chairman and the individual members in attendance. It is my hope that all will agree that another meeting is required, even if the ultimate result is the same. Sincerely, GAN ETT & SACKETT, LLC (A) ) Fy derick W. Gannet FWG:km cc: Gerry Zamora Commission Members present at the meeting: Pat Fitzgerald, Chairman Herb Nelson Dick Stephenson Phillip Vaughan Jim Snyder John Foulkrod Karl Schesser Newly appointed Members; Steve Anthony Stacy Ehlers Anna Price Cheryl Chandler 1NINvnldlet.^_'_1 x`1005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (303) 328-8730 EAGLE 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. 79-"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 be 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). 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 HB -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 community 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 AICP Planner cc: Keith Montag Sid Fox George Roussos Jim Fritze chrono COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (303) 328-8730 • • EAGLE 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 be 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 HB -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 community 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. i • 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 AICP Planner cc: Keith Montag Sid Fox George Roussos Jim Fritze chrono • • GANNETT & SACKETT, LLC Attorneys at Law Frederick W. Gannett Mark H. Sackett BASALT Basalt Realty Bldg. 0206 Cody Lane Basalt, CO 81621 (903) 927-4646 (303) 927-1125 Fax February 23, 1995 DEA FACST1Y_i� LJ (303) 945-7785 Don DeFord, Esq. Garfield County Attorney 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 David Michaelson Garfield County Planner 109 8th Street, #303 Glenwood Springs,.Colorado 81601 ASPEN Alpine Professional Bldg. 600 East Hopkins Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 (903) 926-8378 Gentlemen: It was a pleasure meeting 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 to the Arnold Island Rezoning/PUD request. Please consider this letter as a formal request to reopen the Planning & Zoning Commission's approval of the Arnold Island Rezoning. I rase my request upon the following factors, which 1 believe, if investigated, will be proven to be accurate. 1. Mr. Michaelson's recitation to the Planning & 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 with regard to the rezoning request, which, in fact, had not occurred. 1 spoke with Paul Clarkson, AICP, Eagle County Community Development Department, and his supervisor, Keith Montang, 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 & Zoning Commission. A copy of that letter is enclosed as Exhibit "A". U .• 'U J kill, l v. J J 1 .1_1. 1 .)&),) J .. I 1 1 .. J . i. .— i• . a 1. L 1 • • Don DeFord, Esq. David Michaelson February 23, 1995 Page 2 2. This is a significant factor_ Eagle County's response to Mr. Michaelson'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 abutting land owners, namely extraordinary density, complications with the new and old Highway 82, deviation from the Mid -Valley Comnimity Master Plan with regard to density, lack of character with both the Dakota Development on north Highway 82, and the residential community on the south of old Highway 82. Mr. Michaelson represented to the Planning & Zoning Commission that Eagle County had been contacted and had failed to respond in time for the February 8 hearing. Unfortunately, whatever reason, that absolutely incorrect. Had the Planning & Zoning Commission been apprised of Eagle County's opposition to the aforementioned PUD, it may have significantly modified its approval, or rejected the zoning request outright. Enclosed as Exhibit "B" is a copy of Eagle County's response. 3. The next issue of significant concern is Ivir. Ivlichaelson'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. Mr. Michaelson contended that "the availability of water and sewer for Mid -Valley Metropolitan District,'' was a "changed circumstance." I challenged that contention in my remarks to the Commission. My 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 (part of this will be refuted later) one of the necessary technical requirements for a change in zoning. However, the "changed circurnstances" is not a function of the sudden availability of water and sewer, but an evaluation of the character of the abutting land area. 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 Commission's decision or, in the event the County Commissioners go forward, their reliance on that aspect. I believe the record must demonstrate some evidence of a changed circumstance with regard to the character of the surrounding land and not merely the availability of water and sewer. 4. I asked Mr. Michaelson at the meeting if he had reviewed the documents submitted 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 which to base his application. To that extent, I reviewed the records of the Eagle County Attorney and the Con-tmunity 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, I learned that Dakota North had used approximately 82 EQR U.JJ 1110 .1.0.1.1l) 1,1_1 1 JUJ t) -i 11.0 iL1.1:,Li 1 , LLk. • • Don DeFord, Esq. David Michaelson February 23, 1995 Page 3 allotted by the 1041 review process. By my mathematical calculations, this leaves only 38 units available for use at the Dakota South/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 EQR's is even more suspect, in that the underground water pipe sleeves are defective and will require significant costs to repair. None of this was provided to the Planning Commission 5. Ed Podolak, in his opening comments to the Planning & Zoning Commission, indicated that he desired to build an affordable employee housing 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, any mention of a PUD application having been filed on or before February 8, 1995. I was startled to learn, in a subsequent meeting between Ed Podolak and the affected conununity, of the fact that the PUD application had been filed prior to the February 8, 1995 meeting. Mr. Podolak's failure to indicate to the Planning & Zoning Commission the nature of the application is an intentional misrepresentation of a material fact. Had 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 a fair market value for a return on his investment. He also intends, as I understand, to offer rental management on the apartment units. Nothing in his 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 PUD submittal is misleading. I am not certain as to how or why these misrepresentations or errors in the record came to be, but I know that they had a significant detrimental effect on my 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 Commission 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 Ed Podolak intentionally misrepresented the scope and nature of his project in a deliberate attempt to obtain approval only on the professed desire to provide employee housing are material misrepresentations. I understand the meeting before the Planning & Zoning Conunission 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 Michaelson February 23, 1995 Page 4 meeting at which all information necessary to process the application is received in a timely manner, and at which all representations upon which the Board will rely to make its decision, are accurate and contextually appropriate. Mr. Michaelson, in comments made to me and sotne 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 I appreciate his sentiments and the time taken by him in explaining some of the processes that had occurred. However, I cannot ignore the fact that Mr. Michaelson, himself, made comments 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 PUD process, and the identification of "changed circumstances" has not been met, neither under Mr. Michaelson's assessment nor my own. If we were to rely on Mr. Michaelson'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 I intend to raise these concerns before the next Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on March 8, 1995, at 8:00 p.m. However, I feel that it is entirely inappropriate for the Board of County Commissioners to bring the rezoning application forward on March 7, 1995, at 2:00 p.m., when the factors that 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. I 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 both staff and applicant with regard to Don DeFord, Esq. David Michaelson February 23, 1995 Page 5 the proposed change. I will be providing a copy of this letter to the Planning & Zoning Commission Chairman and the individual members in attendance.. It is my hope that all will agree that another meeting is required, even if the ultimate result is the sante. Sincerely, GANN TT & SACKETT, LLC F derick W. Gw>siet� FWG:kin cc: Gerry Zamora Commission Members present at the meeting: Pat Fitzgerald, Chairman Herb Nelson Dick Stephenson Phillip Vaughan Jim Snyder John Foulkrod Karl Schesser Newly appointed Members; Steve Anthony Stacy Ehlers Anna Price Cheryl Chandler RIN,oldlec.^_21 • M February 8, 1995 To: Garfield County Planning & Zoning Commission From: Ray Meeks and Christine Lester 17451 Old Highway 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 homes 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 he 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 homes on his property. His argument that no one wants to purchase a homesite on that side of the highway has been proven incorrect as homes 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 Highway 82 would increase dramatically. With the current low density homes 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. l3Pcause 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 home 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 M Page 2 I'm authorized to report to you that the following individuals have reviewed this letter and agree with its content. • Itn"y � lIs f 1-c,r/ eels 17 yrs //W./ g2 8/CZ3 4 • 9. 'V • E f ( I ....1L1,..-:. _ -.. . `.. ,A ) '• - - 1 74' 366 " 7z6,5 ..L.•7, • • • • 7172h.• 365 ( \ 00 5 7000. v-) 0 0. ce. 0 00 z >63 64 '62 )0 rT Leon .41.17\ '5432 '61 64 5 4 • WC --7—k••• ''‘)i • . • • 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, day nursery and school. 3.05.03 Uses, special: 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 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 lot 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 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 Requirements: All uses shall be subject to the provisions under Section 5 (Supplementary Regulations). 3.06 R/G/UD -- RESIDENTIAL/GENERAL/URBAN DENSITY 3.06.01 Uses, by right: Single-family, two-family and multiple -family dwelling, boarding 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. 24 • • 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 Arca: Seven thousand five hundred (7500) square fcct and as further provided under Supplementary Regulations. 3.06.05 Maximum Lot Coverage: Fifty percent (50%). 3.06.06 Minimum Setback: (1) 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: 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: Ten (10) feet from side lot line or one-half (1/2) the height of the principal building, whichever is greater. 3.06.07 Maximum I-Ieight 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 to the provisions under Section 5 (Supplementary Regulations). 3.07 CIL -- 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 arc observed: 25 RECEIVED 2 1994 m• SH No/MP/Side: 82/17.65/L COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Local Jurisdiction: Garfield/Eagle STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT Dist/Section/Patrol: 3216 DOT Permit No.: 394163 Permit Fee: $100.00 Date of Transmittal: 10-31-94 THE PERMITTEE; Dakota Partners L.L.G. 2227 Emma Road Basalt, CO 81621 is hereby granted permission to construct and use an access to the state highway at the location noted below. The access shall be constructed, maintained and used in accordance with the terms and conditions of this permit, including the State Highway,Access Code and listed attachments. This permit may be revoked by the issuing authority if at any time the permitted access and its use violate any of the terms and conditions of this permit. The use of advance warning and construction signs, flashers, barricades and flaggers are required at all times during access construction within State right-of-way in conformance with the MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, Part VI. The issuing authority, the Department and their duly appointed agents and employees shall be held harmless against any action for personal injury or property damage sustained by reason of the exercise of the permit. LOCATION: On the north side of State Highway 82, a distance of 3432 feet east from Mile Post 17. ACCESS TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO: Single family residence (23 units) and multi family residence (50 units). OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS: Access is permitted as constructed. MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY APPROVAL Required only when the appropriate local authority retains issuing authority. By (X) Not Required Date - Title Upon the signing of this permit the permittee agrees to the terms and conaitions and referenced attachments contairied herein. All construction shall be completed in an expeditious and safe manner and shall be finished within 45 days from initiation. The permitted access shall be completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit prior to being used. The permittee shall notify N/A - - with the Colorado Department of Transportation in at , at least 48 hours prior to commencing construction within he State Highway right-of-way. The person signing as the per ttee • os •e th- own- or -gal representative of the property served by the permitted access and have full autho ' y to a ep he p- mit - d . it's terms and conditions. Permittee (X) ' , Date /2-/ -94/ This permit is not valid until signed by a duly authorized representative of the Department. DEPARTMENT TR% : = :1-TATION , I STATE OF COLORADO ,A,, /7J- f By (X) %110 Date Title (Date of issue) COPY DISTRIBUTION: Required; Make copies as necessary for; 1. District (Original) Local Authority i Inspector 2. Applicant MTCE Patrol Traffic Engineer 3. Staff ROW Previous Editions are Obsolete and will not be used CDOT Form #101 7/91 • •. The following paragraph are pertinent highlights of the State Highway Access Code. These are provided for your convenience but do not alleviate compliance with all sections of the Access Code. A copy of the State Highway Access Code is available from your local Issuing authority (local government) or the Colorado Department of Transportation (Department). When this permit was Issued, the issuing authority made its decision based in part on Information submitted by the applicant, on the access category which is assigned to the highway, what alternative access to other public roads and streets Is available, and safety and design standards. Changes In use or design not approved by the permit or the issuing authority may cause the revocation or suspension of the permit. I Appeals 1. Should the permittee or applicant chose to object to any of the terms or conditions of the permit placed therein by the Department, an appeal must be filed with the Colorado Transportation Commission within 60 days of transmittal of the permit for permittee signature. The request for the hearing shall be filed in writing and submitted to the Colorado Transportation Commission, 4201 East Arkansas Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80222. The request shall include reasons for the appeal and may include recommendations by the permittee or applicant that would be acceptable to him. 2. The Department may consider any objections and requested revisions at the request of the applicant or permittee. If agreement is reached, the Department, with the approval of the local issuing authority (if applicable), may revise the permit accordingly, or issue a new permit, or require the applicant to submit a new application for reconsideration. Changes in the original application, proposed design or access use will normally require submittal of a new application. 3. Regardless of any communications, meetings, or negotiations with the Department regarding revisions and objections to the permit, if the permittee or applicant wishes to appeal the Department's decision to the Commission, the appeal must be brought to the Commission within 60 days of transmittal of the permit. 4. Any appeal by the applicant or permittee of action by the local issuing authority when it is the appropriate local authority (under subsection 2.4), shall be filed with the local authority and be consistent with the appeal procedures of the local authority. 5. If the final action is not further appealed, the Department or local authority may record the decision with the County Clerk and Recorder. II Construction standards and requirements 1. The access must be under construction within one year of the permit date. However, under certain conditions a one year time extension may be granted if requested in writing prior to permit expiration. 2. The applicant shall notify the office specified on the permit at least 48 hours prior to construction. A copy of the permit shall be available for review at the construction site. Inspections will be made during construction. 3. The access construction within highway right-of-way must be completed within 45 days. 4. It is the responsibility of the permittee to complete the construction of the access according to the terms and conditions of the permit. If the permittee wishes to use the access prior to completion, arrangements must be approved by the issuing authority and Department and included on the permit. The Department or issuing authority may order a halt to any unauthorized use of the access. Reconstruction or improvements to the access may be required when the permittee has failed to meet required specifications of design or materials. If any construction element fails within two years due to improper construction or material specifications, the permittee is responsible for all repairs. 5. In the event it becomes necessary to remove any right-of-way fence, the posts on either side of the access shall be securely braced with an approved end post before the fence is cut to prevent any slacking of the remaining fence. All posts and wire removed are Department property and shall be turned over to a representative of the Department. 6. A copy of the permit shall be available for review at the construction site. If necessary, minor changes and additions shall be ordered by the Department or local authority field inspector to meet unanticipated site conditions. 7. The access shall be constructed and maintained in a manner that shall not cause water to enter onto the roadway, and shall not interfere with the drainage system in the right-of-way. 8. Where necessary to remove, relocate, or repair a traffic control device or public or private utilities for the construction of a permitted access, the work shall be accomplished by the permittee without cost to the Department or issuing authority, and at the direction of the Department or utility company. Any damage to the state highway or other public right-of-way beyond that which is allowed in the permit shall be repaired immediately. 9. Adequate advance warning is required at all times during access construction, in conformance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. This may includethWuse of signs, flashers, barricades and flaggers. This Is also required by section 42-4-501,C.R.S. as amended. The issuing authority, the Department and their duly appointed agents and employees shall be held harmless against any action for personal injury or property damage sustained by reason of the exercise of the permit. III Changes In use and violations 1. If there are changes in the use of the access, the access permit -issuing authority must be notified of the change. A change in property use which makes the existing access design or use in non-conformance with the Access Code or the terms and conditions of the permit, may require the reconstruction or relocation of the access. Examples of changes in access use are; an increase in vehicular volume by 20 percent, or an increase by 20 percent of a directional characteristic such as a left turn. The issuing authority will review the original permit; it may decide it is adequate or request that you apply for a new permit. 2. All terms and conditions of the permit are binding upon all assigns, successors -in -interest and heirs. 3. When a permitted driveway is constructed or used in violation of the Access Code, the local government or Department may obtain a court order to halt the violation. Such access permits may be revoked by the issuing authority. IV Further Information 1. When the permit holder wishes to make improvements to an existing legal access, he shall make his request by filing a completed permit application form with the issuing authority. The issuing authority may take action only on the request for improvement. Denial does not revoke the existing access. 2. The permittee, his heirs, successors -in -interest, and assigns, of the property serviced by the access shall be responsible for meeting the terms and conditions of the permit and the removal or clearance of snow or ice upon the access even though deposited on the access in the course of Department snow removal operations. The Department shall maintain in unincorporated areas the highway drainage system, including those culverts underthe access which are part of that system within the right-of-way. 3. The issue date of the permit is the date the Department representative signs the permit which is after the permittee has returned the permit signed and paid any required fees. 4. The Department may, when necessary for the improved safety and operation of the roadway, rebuild, modify, remove, or redesign the highway including any auxiliary lane. 5. Any driveway, whether constructed before, on, or after June 30, 1979, may be required by the Department, with written concurrence of the appropriate local authority, to be reconstructed or relocated to conform to the Access Code, either at the property owner's expense if the reconstruction or relocation is necessitated by a change in the use of the property which results in a change in the type of driveway operation; or at the expense of the Department if the reconstruction or relocation is necessitated by changes in road or traffic conditions. The necessity for the relocation or reconstruction shall be determined by reference to the standards set forth in the Access Code. • • DAKOTA SOUTH TOWNHOMES ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS Public Service P.O. Box 840, Suite 400 Denver, Co 80201-0840 Alpine Animal Hospital 17776 Highway 82 Carbondale, Co 81623 Dakota Partners Ed Podolak C/O Coates, Reid & Waldron 720 E. Hyman 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 Henry Edward Jr. & Cherie Lynn Booher P.O. Box 568 -Ay 82 Snowmass, Co 81654 Bradley L. & Renee Allee Black 57 Arlian Road Carbondale, Co 81623 Williams Brothers, Inc. P.O. Box 28002 El Jebel, Co 81628 29 A/R/RD • 0 29 LI 0 0 �. zoNtN-16, •AAP i LETTER OF AUTIJORIZATION 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. bert Arnold Date Gloria Arnold 9416nuth Date w w w ✓ N ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ • • 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. However, 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) 2. Density Pattern a. High 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 B-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 DUs/Acre Net DUs/Acre DUs August 2, 1991 P High45 50% 4 - 8 8 - 16 2,580 - 5,160 7,224 - 14,448 Medium 415 50% 2 - 6 4 - 12 831 - 2,493 2,327 - 6,980 Low 1,108 75% 1/35 - 1/14 1/35 - 1/14 32 - 79 90 - 221 Iota) 2,168 3,443 7,732 9,641 21,650 Table 1 8 _______-.4•4•141111111111111111111 • 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 berming will be allowed for screening within this area. 4. 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 berming will be allowed for screening adjacent to agricultural lands. 5. Visual setbacks along Emma Road and Hookspur Road, so that no new development is visible from these corridors. They are indicated as 200 foot setbacks. Agriculture shall be retained within this 200' setback. The intent, visual screening, could be 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 be 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 Highway 82. 8. The primary road system would be upgraded in its current basic configuration. In the El Jebel area, some improvements are 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 Highway 82, and upgrading of Missouri Heights Road in response to future development. Willits Lane and Missouri Heights Road will remain the pritnary north/south collectors for future development. 9 PI ■ r r M • • 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. r. =INN= • .10 I /ENSITY • ` • I '• SECONDARY ROAD I�• i URBAN SERVICES BOUNDARY 9Rzn11N WAY 1/2 NILE RADIUS • - HIGH DENSITY • �� RAMS Ili I''...�.;r'I'.•.tYrFr/111— IfWrIMIA • • Lam•♦ ....:'i Development Concept Diagram Summary %% z 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 Highway 82 and the state wildlife preserve (mixed low-density residential and strip institutional use), the KOA campground, the Holland Hills subdivision (which violates the 200 foot setback), and innumerable curb cuts along Highway 82. Other than these anomalies, the plan responds compatibly with the goals and policies previously articulated while responding to the need for continued development. 10 111 TRANSMISSION REPORT **************Affff 411 :GARFIELD COUNTY ( MAR 01 '95 14:26 ) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *: 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *: DATE START REMOTE TERMINAL MODE TIME RESULTS TOTAL DEPT. * * TIME IDENTIFICATION PAGES CODE * * * * MAR 01 14:23 1 303 927 1125 G3ST 02'54" OK 04 * * * * * A. * f * * * * * * A * i * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4<4< * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *