HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 06.30.1986REQUEST:
OWNERS:
ENGINEER:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
• •
BOCC 6/30/86
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
Canyon Creek Estates PUD Plan
amendment and Zone District text
amendment
Lazier -Sills Partnership
Mountain Engineering and Land
Surveying
The property is located in portions
of Section 25 & 26, T5S, R90W of
the 6th P.M., more practically
described as a tract of land north
of Highway 6 & 24 and immediately
east of the I-70 Canyon Creek exit.
The request is to split a 74.577
acre parcel into 69 single family
lots.
WATER: Existing community distribution
system supplied by a well.
SEWER: Privately owned central sewage
disposal system.
EXISTING ZONING: PUD
ADJACENT ZONING:
North: O/S
South: R/L/UD
West: A/R/RD
East: O/S, R/L/UD
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The site lies within Districts C & D of the Comprehensive Plan. The
PUD plan and zone districts have been found to be in general
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan of May of 1981. The proposed
amendments to the PUD Plan and zone district text are in general
compliance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 1984.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The site is on a small mesa above Canyon Creek
that has primarily pinon and juniper vegetation.
B. Project Description: It is proposed to amend the original PUD
plan and zone district text to allow for 69 single family
detached dwellings on lots ranging in size from 0.25 acres to
8.027 acres. An approved water and sewage system is in place
consistent with previous approvals. Access will be from State
Highway 6 & 24 onto a private road.
III.MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Zoning: Section 10 of the County Zoning Resolution allows for
the amendment of a PUD Plan and zone district text. Any
modifications of the Plan or text must meet these criteria
contained in Section 4.12.03:
(1) No modification, removal, or release of the provisions of
the Plan by the County shall affect the rights of the residents,
occupants and owners of the PUD to maintain and enforce those
provisions at law or in equity; and
(2) No substantial modifications, removal, or release of the
provisions of the Plan by the County shall be permitted except
upon a finding by the County, following a public hearing called
and held in accordance with the provisions of C.R.S. 1973,
24-67-104, that the modification, removal or release is
consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the
entire PUD, does not affect in a substantially adverse manner
either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street
from the PUD, or the public interest, and is not granted solely
to confer a special benefit upon any person.
There are no residents, occupants or owners of the property other than
the applicants. The proposed modifications do not change the impacts
on adjoining property or across the street since there is no increase
in density or general concept. This will be explained further on in
these comments.
B. Staff Comments:
1. The original PUD approval and the water augmentation plan
were for 69 dwelling units. The amendments proposed are
primarily to eliminate the multi -family and duplex units
from the development. There will only be two zone
districts, a Single Family Residential Zone District and
Common Open Space Zone District. (See pages,
One suggested change is to change the Conditional Uses to
Uses by Right, subject to standards contained in Section C.
Eliminate "studio for arts and crafts" given that it would
be a "home occupation". Then add to Section C the following
language:
Home Occupation Standards
A. No home occupation shall be permitted that:
1. Changes the outside appearance of the dwelling or
is visible from the street;
2. Creates a hazard to person or property, results in
electrical interference, or becomes a nuisance;
3. Results in the outside storage or display of
anything.
B. The following are prohibited as home occupations:
1. Dancing studios;
2. Repair shops;
3. Restaurants;
4. Stables or kennels;
5. Automobile repair or paint shops.
Another suggestion would be to modify the side
yard setback requirements in the Single Family
Residential Zone given the potential for some
fairly narrow pie -shaped lots. The following
language may be appropriate:
side yard: 7.5 feet
2. The PUD plan shows 17 blocks, ranging in size from 1.113
acres to 8.027 acres. Each block has an assigned number of
lots that can be created by further redivision of a final
plat. Section 7.20 of the County Subdivision Regulations
allows for the redivision of a final plat into smaller lots
if the intent to do so is indicated on the plat and the
Board feels it is appropriate based on a Preliminary Plan
approval. The applicants will submit an amended Final Plat
with a plat note indicating the intent to redivide the
blocks further based on their previous Preliminary Plan
approval.
• •
A condition of approval of the PUD plan and zone district
text amendment should be included to clarify this intent.
The following language is suggested:
That all blocks may be divided further in accordance
with Section 7.20 of the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations of 1984 and the densities approved on the
Canyon Creek PUD Plan map.
3. The applicant's engineer has stated that any future
redivision of the blocks will not increase the surface
drainage flows of the area. This would be a possible issue
during redivision, if it had not been answered now. (See
letter, page 17 )
IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
1. That the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners was
extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and
issues were submitted, and that all interested parties were heard
at the meeting;
2. That the PUD Plan and Zone District text amendments are
consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the
entire PUD, does not affect, in a substantially adverse manner,
either the enjoyment of the land abutting upon or across a street
from the PUD, or the public interest, and is not granted solely
to confer a special benefit upon any person;
3. That the proposed zoning is in general compliance with the
recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the
unincorporated area of the County; provided certain conditions
are met in any subsequent land use permit applications;
4. That the requested Planned Unit Development Plan and Zone
District text amendments are in general compliance with all
requirements of the applicable Garfield County Zoning Resolution
and, further, that the requested Planned Unit Development
Modification is suitable and appropriate for the subject
property, given the location, condition and circumstances of the
property, and it is generally compatible with existing land uses
in the surrounding nearby area;
5. That for the above -stated and other reasons, the proposed Planned
Unit Development Zone District Text Modification Text amendments
are in the best interest of the health, safety, morals,
convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of
Garfield County.
V. RECOMMENDATION
On June 11, 1986, the Planning Commission recommended approval to the
Board of County Commissioners, with the following conditions:
1. That the PUD Zone District text be modified as noted in staff
comment #1.
2. That all blocks may be redivided further in accordance with
Section 7.20 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of
1984 and the densities approved on the Canyon Creek PUD Plan Map.
3
EXHIBIT "B"
CANYON CREEK ESTATES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
ZONE DISTRICT TEXT AMENDMENT
AMENDMENT TO CANYON CREEK P.U.D. ZONE DISTRICT
REGULATIONS APPROVED
RESOLUTION NO. BY GARFIELD COUNTY
3-46, RECORDED MARCH 8, 1983
AS RECEPTION NO. 510.338978 IN BOOK 621 AT PAGE
A. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT
1. Uses by Ri
uses, qht: Single-family and customary accessory
2. Uses, Conditional:
and crafts. Home occupation, studio
for arts
3. Minimum Lot Area:
0.25 acres.
4. Minimum Buildin
Setback:
a. Front
yard: 25 feet from front lot lines.
b • Rear ya rd : 10
feet from rear lot line.
c. Side yard: 10
feet from side lot line.
5. Maximum Hei
ht of Buildin s: 30 feet.
6.
Maximum Lot Covera
e: 40 percent.
B. COMMON OPEN SPACE
1.
Uses bS' Right:
Passive and
recreational facilities active
storage facilities community recreation,
sanitation y facilities, water
paddocks, facilities, stables and
2. Minimum Buildin
Setbacks
a. Front
yard: 50 feet from street centerline.
b • Rear yard:
50 feet from residential
c. buildings.
Side yard: 10 feet
from side and rear lot lines.
3. Maximum Hei
ht of Buildin s: 25 feet.
4. Maximum Lot Covera
e: 15 percent.
• t •
C. SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
1. Parking Requirements:
a. Residential: Two spaces per unit.
b. Common Open Space: Community facilities shall be
centrally located and designed for pedestrian
access. For community facilities located, or to
be located, within deeded common open space,
parking facilities will accommodate a minimum of
20 percent of the projected users of these facili-
ties.
D. DEFINITIONS
1. Active Recreation: Recreational activities undertaken
on land improved with recreational or community
facilities.
2. Building Height: Measured vertically from the average
natural finished grade line immediately adjoining the
foundation to the average roof height.
3. Community Facilities: Public restrooms and meeting
facilities designed alone or in conjunction with
recreational facilities.
4. Lot Coverage: The portion of a lot or tract which is
covered or occupied by buildings, structures, parking
and drives.
5. Minimum Setback: The minimum dimension of a required
yard.
6. Minimum Lot Area: The total land area within the boun-
daries of a lot.
7. Passive Recreation: Recreational activities on land in
its natural state, without landscaping or any
improvement.
8. Recreational Facilities: Improvements such as pools,
tennis courts, playgrounds, picnic tables, softball
fields, volleyball courts, and horseshoe pits designed
to provide for active recreation.
9. Sanitation Facilities: Wastewater treatment plants,
lift stations, collection lines, trunk lines, power
line, and all other appurtenances thereto.
10. Water Storage Facilities: Treated water storage faci-
lities and all lines, pumps, and all other appurtenan-
ces thereto.
mountain engineering & land Purveying co.
406 s. hyland square, suite a-1
glenwood springs, colorado 81601
945-2045
p.o. box 14 gypsum, colorado 81637 524-9414
June 11, 1986
Mr. Jimmy Sills
P.O. Box 981
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Drainage for Canyon Creek Estates P.U.D.
Dear Jimmy:
As you know, you and I have discussed in detail your revised plan
for the subject project. Our office has prepared the new plat.
In reviewing the original drainage plan as compared to the new plat,
I see no significant changes. Basically the only difference will be
the location of "driveway" culverts. This will have no impact on
total runoff.
It is standard engineering procedure to assume a certain square
footage of impervious area for each unit. This includes a driveway.
This assumed area is quite conservative. The minor changes you are
planning will have no impact on the total drainage as the ratio of
impervious area to undisturbed area is quite small.
If you have additional questions, please advise. Thank you.
Sincerely,
David W. Grounds, P.E.
00%111111,7i,,