HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff ReportsPROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
CATTLE CREEK RANCH PUD (MODIFICATION TO THE PUD AND SKETCH PLAN)
OWNER: Cattle Creek Ranch, Joint Venture,
Aspen, Colorado.
REPRESENTATIVE: Frank Lerner
730 East Durant
Aspen, CO 81511
PROJECT COORDINATOR:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER AND SEWER:
Ron Liston and Parry Thomas of Land
Design Partnership
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
945=2246
Portions of Sections 5 & 8, Township 7
South, Range 87 West. Approximately
8 miles east of Highway 82. County Roads
100 & 113.
There are a total of 319 acres that will
be developed with 131 dwelling units.
Because of the clustering of the housing,
58% is being proposed as open space. Within
this open space, there is an equestrian
center and related uses. The gross
density is .4 units per acre, (or
1 unit for each 2.5 acres).
From the creation of a water and sanitation
district, the water source being a series
of wells along Cattle Creek, storage
from a one million gallon tank to be located
in the southeast corner of the proposal.
The sewer plant is to be located along
Cattle Creek but downstream from the well
location.
EXISTING ZONING: PUD (Zoning approved for 131 single family
residences on 960 acres on November 1, 1977).
PROPOSED ZONING: PUD (Modified to allow for 131 dwelling units
on 319 acres).
ADJACENT ZONING:
North: A/R/RD
South: A/R/RD
East: A/R/RD
West: A/R/RD and 0/S
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
A. The project lies within district "B", a rural serviceable area which shall not
have a density greater than one unit per 2 acres. New development may have the
same density as the existing subdivision. In this case, the existing subdivisions
are Panorama Ranches which has one unit/51- acres and Cattle Creek PUD, which has
a density of one unit per 7+ acres. Further, the Plan requires all new
development within district "B" to maintain the existing level of adequate and
dependable community services and not create an additional burden on their services.
B. Housing Policies: The county shall encourage residential development to
occur in areas which can be served by existing technical services and have adequate
public road access.
C. Roads: Under the transportation section of the Comprehensive Plan, it states
"Roads shall be located and designed so as to minimize undue land speculation
and the untimely conversion of productive agricultural land." (Page 23, Policies #11).
D. Community Services: The county shall encourage new development to locate in
areas where the existing community services have capacity to absorb growth.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
A. Site Description: The project straddles Cattle and Coulter Creeks which con -
_7_
o
verges at the westerly edge of the pro ,erty . Presently, there are approximately
250 acres of irrigated pasture and hay ;round along Cattle Creek. The remaining
agricultural land is being farmed as dry land wheat. The site topography varies
from gently rolling to steep slopes. The native vegetation consists primarily
of grasses, sage brush and oak brush.
Project Description: A recreation oriented PUD consisting of 319 acres to be
developed into 131 dwelling units in a"lsxcury_ ranch" setting, including extensive
equestrian facilities and other recreational amenities. Approximately 58% of
the site will be open space.
ITT. 1'AJOR CONCERNS AND ISSUES:
A. History of the proposal:
11/21/77 - Cattle Creek PUD was officially rezoned allowing 131 single family
residences which equates to 1 dwelling unit per 7.4 acres.
11/30/80 - Filing #1 of Cattle Creek Subdivision recorded (67 lots on 476 acres).
9/14/81 - Planning Commission recommended denial of a proposal to amend
the PUD which would have increased the number of single family residences from
131 to 786 which equates to a density of 1 dwelling unit per 1.2 acres. The
recommendation for denial was based on non -compatibility with the existing
area and non-compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
10/81 - Applicant withdrew application.
7/7/82 - Planning Commission recommended denial of a proposal to amend the PUD which
would have increased the number of dwelling units from 131 to 786, a density of
1 dwelling unit per 1.2 acres. The recommendation for denial was based on
incompatibility with the surrounding land uses, and inconsistency with the intent
of the Comprehensive Plan.
8/16/82 Applicant withdrew application.
B. Concerning land uses and zoning:
1. Historically, the Cattle Creek Area has been dominated by large ranches.
Within this past five years, the area has experienced a marked increase
in residential subdivisions of land into smaller parcels. Examples of
these are Panorama Ranches, Kings Row, and Cattle Creek PUD. Even with
these residential subdivisions, the character of the area remains rural/
ranch.
�. The following zone districts are proposed within the PUD:
a. Greenbelt - recroationa1 and agricultural uses, and public facilities;
b. Recreational Services District - clubhouse, equestrian center, restaurant,
retail commercial shops related to recreational uses, ranch/property
management offices, and dwelling units for employees of the recreational
facilities;
c Residential/Single Family District - (20,000 square feet minimum lot
area);
d Residential/Cluster Housing District - (minimum lot size varies from
800 square feet to 10,000 square feet).
3. The Greenbelt zone district name should he changed to Open Space to
parallel the zone map.
4. The Recreational Service District name should be changed to Recreational
District to parallel the zone map.
5. The "bar and lounge" use proposals in the Recreational District does not
seem to be appropriate at this location and should be eliminated. The
proposed restaurant and retail commercial shops must be tightly controlled.
The intent is not to create a commercial center at this time and the
zoning regulation should reflect that intent.
6. It should be noted that live-in maid and caretaker quarters will be
permitted in the residential zone provided they are attached to the
principal dwelling unit.
7. As a matter of consistency, minimum lot sizes should be provided for the
Open Space and Recreation Districts.
-8-
0
8. A setback provision should be made for reverse corner lots.
9. Section X of the Zone District text pertaining to signs should be
eliminated and references made to the Garfield County sign code.
Provisions for more stringent sign requirements should be included
within the covenants.
10. The developer should explain the rational for an additional parking
space for home occupation.
11. Some additional guest parking may be needed in the cluster housing
areas. The parking spaces for the restaurant use seems slightly low.
An evolving national standard is 4.5 to 5.5 spaces per 1000 square
feet of gross floor area for restaurants and retail areas. Additional
parking for caretakers and maids should be required. "All weather
surfacing" of parking areas should be defined.
12. The exclusion noted in Section XII (pages III - 33 of the Development
Guide) are not necessary in a PUD 5conflict with county regulations.
The exclusions are not possible.
13. It should be understocd by the developer that Garfield County is not
adopting the entire development guide but will incorporate only the zone
district text in any PUD requiring resolution. The development guide
can be enforced by the developer - the county will enforce applicable
county regulations. The county will not refuse to issue any building
permits, certificates of occupancy, sign permits or any other permits if
all county regulations are complied with. County zoning, subdivision,
design and other regulations shall be the minimum standards and the only
standards enforced by the county.
C. Concerning the Site Plan:
1.. The overall layout of the subdivision is very good. The relationship
of the residential areas and access to open space and recreational
facilities is appropriate for the type of development proposed.
The site design is the same as the central portion of the "785' plan
previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. The design is a good
example of efficient design utilizing PUD technique of clustering
housing, preserving large tracts of open space, minimizing infrastructures,
and promoting harmonious design.
The recreational amenities are high quality and exceptional for 131
dwelling units. The impression will be a relatively low density
recreational/residential development.
2. The major problem with the design that is proposed is primarily centered
around the proposed cluster housing and particularly potential fire
hazards. The development will be developed with a central water source
and fire hydrants will be placed throughout the area. However, the following
should be considered:
a Petitioning into the Carbondale Rural Fire Protection District (the
developer has approached the district).
b. Developing a fire protection plan in conjunction with the Fire District.
c. Participating in providing fire protection equipment in the area.
d. Training permanent staff as qualified volunteer firemen.
e. Not developing the cluster housing portions of the development until
the above measures have been taken.
3. The sewage treatment plant,water treatment plant and water tank should be
shown on subsequent plats.
4+. The County Road Supervisor has indicated the roads should be maintained by
a Home Owners Association.
5. It is recognized that the offsite road impacts will be population driven
and that this development of 131 units will not create any more impacts
than the approved 131 units. However, the County Road Supervisor has
identified two areas of the county road that should be improved in order
to accommodate this development.
-9-
a. Additional shaping and gravel on 113 Road adjacent to the site
and maintenance of this section.
b. A guard rail; approximately 200-250 feet of guard located about
1 mile down the read from the site.
The developer should also agree to participate in future road improvements
along with other lot owners in the area if an equitable formula is devised.
6. It should be noted on the rezoning resolution and subsequent plats that
the maximum number of dwelling units is 131.
7. Pedestrian ways should be labeled on subsequent plats.
8. The rezoning and subdivision action will include vacation of existing PUD
zoning and subdivision.
IV. FINDINGS
1. The applicant has followed all applicable regulations for the processing of
this application.
2. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law.
3. That the meeting 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 hearing.
4. That the proposed zoning is in compliance with the recommendations set
forth in the master plan for the unincorporated area of the county.
5. The sketch plan conforms to Section 4.01, Sketch Plan requirements o1' tie
Garfield County Subdivision regulations.
6. The sketch plan conforms to the requirements of the zone district in which
the development is located.
7. That for the above stated and other reasons, the sketch plan appears to
Qualify for approval by this Hoard.
V. RECOMMENDATION.
A major concern .with the "786" plan received by the Planning Commission in
July of 1982 was the relationship of the proposal to the Comprehensive
Plan and the appropriateness of the large number of dwelling units at this
location at this time.
The present proposal meets the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. The
costs of providing county services to this area will, at worst, remain the
sane as the costs of providing services to the existing 131 units. In fact,
due to the compact design of the subdivision, the provisions of services will
probably be somewhat less.
The proposal offers a distinct alternative to typical 5 acre subdivisions by pre-
serving large maintainable, fai•rnable and, most important, useable tracts of
open space. The Planning staff and Planning Counission have worked through
numerous "5 acre type" subdivisions and have found that even this arbitrary
standard has distinct design problems at times (for example, Hawkridge; the developer
could demonstrate that good design necessitated smaller lots). The Comprehensive
Plan guidelines are applied as a case by case basis.
The present proposal must be reviewed in terms of its impacts on adjacent
properties. Here again, the present proposal, physically has less impact
on adjacent neighbors than the approved 131 units simply because the units
are further away from adjacent property owners.
The areas being vacated from the present subdivision plan will remain in
ranching. This area is not considered "prime agricultural land" in the
traditional sense but can be ranched under the present proposal.
Finally, the concerns have been expressed that the present proposal is merely
the first phase of a much larger development. This is not necessarily grounds
to deny the proposal. The Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners
have the authority to deny future development of the property if they determine
that the future development proposals are not appropriate. It is fruitless to
speculate about the ultimate disposition of the property at this time given
the imn.edfnte past history of the proiru=rty and the Planning Ccmmi' '+ten recommendations.
•
V. F,ECOY,MENDATION:
Approval with the following conditions:
1. Staff cmmmento III. B. 3-5 and III. B. 7-13 be considered conditions
of approval.
2. Staff comments III. C. 2 - 8 be considered conditions of approval.
-11-
• 1
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
PROJECT NAME: Cattle Creek Ranch PUD
Page 1
REQUESTED ACTION: Scheduling of a site visit with the Planning
Commission.
OWNER: Cattle Creek Ranch, Joint Venture, Aspen, CO
Representative:
Frank Lerner
Box 9140
Aspen, CO 81611
PROJECT COORDINATOR: Ron Liston of Land Design Partnership, Glenwood
Springs, CO 945-2245..
LOCATION: Approximately 8 miles east of Highway 82 on
Cattle Creek Road.
SITE DATA: There are a total of 963 acres involved in this
proposal. Of this total, 55% is being proposed
as open space. Within this open space an 18
hole golf course and an equistrian center are
proposed. The gross density is .8 dwelling units
per acre as proposed.
WATER:
SEWER:
PROPOSED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS:
EXISTING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
Proposed from a central distribution system, source
being a series of wells along Cattle Creek, storage
from a proposed 1 million gallon tank to be
located in the southeast corner of the proposal.
Proposed from an on-site central collection system
with a plant to be located along Cattle Creek
but donwstream from the proposed well locations.
1. On site: To be dedicated -proposed variations
of chip and seal roads ranging from 20' flow lines
to 24' flow lines.
2. Off site: Improvements to county roads 100 and
113.
PUD (Zoning approved for 131 single family residences
in 1977, average density of .1 dwelling units per
acre.)
PUD (Modified to allow for 786 single family residences
average density of .8 dwelling units per acre.)
A/R/RD (On all sides)
RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
1. The project lies within district "B", a rural serviceable area which shall not
have a density greater than one unit/2 acres. New development may have the same
density as the existing subdivision. In this case, the existing subdivisions are
Panorama Ranches which has one unit/5+ acres and Cattle Creek PUD, which has a
density of one unit per 7+ acres. Further, the Plan requires all new development
within district "B" to maintain the existing level of adequate and dependable community
services and not create an additional burden on their services.
2. Housing policies: The county shall encourage residental development to occur
in areas which can be served by existing technical services and have adequate public
road access.
3. Agriculture: The goal is to encourage farm and ranch land to remain active and
productive in use.
A. The county shall encourage industrial, business, commercial and residential
development to locate within the designated urban areas of influence.
Development may also occur in rural areas adjacent to existing subdivisions
of Similar Land Use having central water and sewer systems.
4. Roads -Roads shall be located and designed so as to minimize undue land speculation
and the untimely conversion of productive agricultural land.
• •
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
PROJECT NAME: Cattle Creek Ranch PUD
Page 1
REQUESTED ACTION: Scheduling of a site visit with the Planning
Commission.
OWNER: Cattle Creek Ranch, Joint Venture, Aspen, CO
Representative:
PROJECT C00RDINATOR:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
PROPOSED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS:
EXISTING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
Frank Lerner
Box 9140
Aspen, CO 81611
Ron Liston of Land Design Partnership, Glenwood
Springs, CO 945-2246.
Approximately 8 miles east of Highway 82 on
Cattle Creek Road.
There are a total of 963 acres involved in this
proposal. Of this total, 55% is being proposed
as open space. Within this open space an 18
hole golf course and an equistrian center are
proposed. The gross density is .8 dwelling units
per acre as proposed.
Proposed from a central distribution system, source
being a series of wells along Cattle Creek, storage
from a proposed 1 million gallon tank to be
located in the southeast corner of the proposal.
Proposed from an on-site central collection system
with a plant to be located along Cattle Creek
but donwstream from the proposed well locations.
1. On site: To be dedicated -proposed variations
of chip and seal roads ranging from 20' flow lines
to 24' flow lines.
2. Off site: Improvements to county roads 100 and
113.
PUD (Zoning approved for 131 single family residences
in 1977, average density of .1 dwelling units per
acre.)
PUD (Modified to allow for 786 single family residences
average density of .8 dwelling units per acre.:)
A/R/RD (On all sides)
RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
1. The project lies within district "B", a rural serviceable area which shall not
have a density greater than one unit/2 acres. New development may have the same
density as the existing subdivision. In this case, the existing subdivisions are
Panorama Ranches which has one unit/5+ acres and Cattle Creek PUD, which has a
density of one unit per 7+ acres. Further, the Plan requires all new development
within district "B" to maintain the existing level of adequate and dependable community
services and not create an additional burden on their services.
2. Housing policies: The county shall encourage residental development to occur
in areas which can be served by existing technical services and have adequate public
road access.
3. Agriculture: The goal is to encourage farm and ranch land to remain active and
productive in use.
A. The county shall encourage industrial, business, commercial and residential
development to locate within the designated urban areas of influence.
Development may also occur in rural areas adjacent to existing subdivisions
of Similar Land Use having central water and sewer systems.
4. Roads -Roads shall be located and designed so as to minimize undue land speculation
and the untimely conversion of productive agricultural land.
•
Page 2
5. Community Services -The county shall encourage new development to locate in
areas where the existing community services have capacity to absorb growth.
ZONING:
SUBDIVISION:
Two of the ten "Purposes and Objectives" in
Section 4.02 of the Garfield County Zoning
Regulations are contradictory to this development.
They are: (5) To encourage a more efficient
use of land and of public services, or private
services in lieu thereof, and to reflect changes
in the technology of land development so that
resulting economies may insure to the benefit
of those who need homes.
(6) To lessen the burden of the traffic on streets
and highways.
The following paragraph from Section 5.01 of the
subdivision regulations gives guidance as to
proposals which may be appropriate at some time
in the future but are not appropriate at this
time:
The commission of the Board may deem land premature for subdivision when growth
patterns of such form and physical shape are created that governmental inefficiencies,
duplications of facilities and unnecessary public costs and financial burdens
result from providing the extension of public services and public support facilities
which cannot be accomplished in a planned, ordered, or efficient manner, or when
the submittal indicates that services or resources necessary for the viability of the
proposed subdivision are neither assured nor reasonably certain.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
1977 -Cattle Creek PUD was officially rezoned and subdivided allowing 131 single
family residences.
9/1++/81 -Planning Commission recommended denial of a proposal to amend the PUD which
would have increased the number of single family residences from 131 to 786 on
9/14/81. The recommendation for denial was based on non -compatibility with the
existing area and non-compliance with the comprehensive ,plan. (See page 3)
STAFF COMMENTS:
This proposal lies outside the limits of any taxing fire district. Consequently the
district boundaries would have to be modified if this development were to be approved.
This revised proposal is similar to the proposal which the Planning Commission
recommended denial on in September of last year. The number of proposed dwelling
units was, and still is, 786. The basic interior road circulation remains unchanged
however, the lot configuaration has been altered. Comparing the previously submitted
land use summary (see page gyp) with the land use summary of this submittal (see page 5)
may prove helpful. The residential use categories have been altered in that the lot
sizes and amount of acreage for each has changed. The proposed commercial area has
been reduced from 17 acres to 7 acres.
The proposed off-site road improvements on both county roads 100 and 113 each include
the securing of additional right-of-way. Staff has concerns as to the possible
ramifications caused by Garfield County condeming properties to facilitate private
development. There have been no improvements proposed for County Road. 103 which may
prove to be impacted to a heavy extent if this proposal is approved.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Because the applicant has only requested for a site visit to be scheduled with the
Planning Commission, staff is reserving their comments as to the rezoning request
and the sketch plan request.
' pave unless passes cost on to the
Page 3
r�,;.rd to the river. He has 50 foot streets but cannot
tenants. He is on low end of /AIL scale now with a few complain; Seal and we should address
Arnold said the County wou only require 24 foot of Chip
the roads now.
Barbara moved to recommend approval of the amendment with the following conditions:
1. All roads within the PUD be chip and seal, phasing to be determined by the commission -
2. The County receive an engineers statement as'to the ability of the existing water
and sewer system to handle the camper park prior to the public hearing with the Commissioners.
John Tripp seconded the motion. Motion was carried unanimously.
ers.
FOURTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA- Cattle
Davis stated that this was a
to 786 units.
Ron Liston, representing the deoeloper, handed out a supplement. He stated that the
application is higher than the comprehensive plan suggests as density in rural serviceable
areas. This project is capable of paying its own way from its tax base. Also, the
comprehensive plan says we should encourage recreation industry, and this does that. The
only problem is where the project is located. Davis read letters from Sheriff McNeal with
his concerns. Also, letters from Elizabeth Penfield, and James Peterson stating their
opposition. Also submitted, a petition with approximately 70 signatures in opposition.
Gloria Gillespie spoke about esthetics, the development will be horrible. They are now
a community. It is not compatible with land and the people..
Bob Donelon stated that a $3,000,000 income from taxes may never happen.
Mary Donelon said Eagle County has same facility within 5 miles and we don't need another
We sLould maintain rural charactor of the area and 400 additional
hour does not do
this. It is in conflict with the
Harley Squires said that his
How will it affect his taxes?
Gary McNulty asked if this
ranch which is adjacent to it?
George Higby was concerned increase of traffic on 103 Road.
Frank Lerner stated that few have sufficient water to develop like this.
project has 54% open space and a 10 to 20 year build out.
Barbara asked if they had spoken to the school district?
Liston stated they would want cash instead of land.
Dick Piffer stated that 131 units wasn't bad but this would
aquifer.
Rita Bell said that the road needed to be fixed now.
Davis gave the staff recommendation of denial due to noncompliance with the comprehensive
plan. 1e on those roads.
Laverne said that it would frighten her to have that many people
Barbara Lorah abstained from voting and Laverne was appointed to vote.
John stated that we should listen to the adjacent property owners, we did on Crown
Meadows and this is the same; it is not compatible with the area.
John moved to recommend denial based upon noncompatibility with the existing area and
no in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Also, it will impact County Road 100.
Laverne seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously.
FIFTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA -Delaney -Como Subdivision Sketch Plan.
Terry Bowman presented the application for the subdivision of a 4 -unit row house located
in West Glenwood. The applicant would like an exemption.
Barbara asked if they would chip and seal the road?
Rob Delaney stated they would chip and seal their portion.
Barbara moved to recommend approval with the following conditions:
1. That an exegtiption be granted with the understanding that if they wish to condominium-
ize the units, they will have to proceed through the full subdivision process. improvement
2. That the roads be up to county standards and they participate in any road im F
agreement on County Road 133.
Dale seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
SIXTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA --Pat Groom Commercial Park Special Use Permit.
Terry stated this was a request for an 8 unit park located near Cattle Creek
82.
1-1,0 annlirant_ discussed the staff recommendation and agreed to
Creek PUD Amendment.
request to allow an increase from 131 single
Sed-. Pi/ NI/
family lots
comprehensive plan.
ranch is next to it and people will be in his ranch and cattl
cars
per
sort of density is allowed here, will it
be
allowed on his
about the
ranches
put a big demand on
This
the
and Highway
P.U.D. PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY
•
Page 4
Dwelling Units Acres
Open Space District - 528.25 ac.
Recreational District 2 28.81 ac.
Residential/Single Family -Rural Density 21
Density .24 units/acre
Residential/Single Family 249
Density 1.86 units/acre
Residential/Cluster Housing District 220
Density 2.71 units/acre
Residential/Multi-Family District 284
Density 3.31 units/acre
Commercial/Village Center District
TOTAL
88.35 ac.
133.72 ac.
80.98 ac.
85.67 ac.
10 (+ 30 over- 17.22 ac.
night lodging
units)
Gross Density .8 dwelling units/acre.
786 dwelling 963 acres
units
Note: Final engineering refinement of the plan at the
time of subdivision platting may result in minor varia-
tions in the above acreages.
410
ARTICLE V rr-r., 1IL -..
CATTLE CREEK RANCH P.U.D. DEVELOPMENT GUIDE
1
Page 5
P.U.D. ZONE MAP LAND USE SUMMARY
Dwelling Units Acres % of Total PUD
Open Space District 532.00 ac 55%
Recreational District
6 23.00 2%
Residential/Single Family
90 133.00 14%
Estate Lot Dist.
Density .67 units/acre
Residential/Single Family
155 112.00 12%
Golf Lot Dist.
Density 1.38 units/acre
Residential/Cluster Housing
180 109.00 11%
Density 1.65 Dist
units/acre
Residential/Multi-Family. Dist- 345
47.00 5%
Density 7.34 units/acre
Commercial/Village Store Dist. 10
7.00 1%
TOTAL
786 dwelling 963 acres 100%
units
Gross Density .8 dwelling units/acre.
Note: Final engineering refinement of the plan at the
time of subdivision platting may result in minor variations
in the above acreages.
LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH
KEVIN L. PATRICK
JAMES B.LOCHHEAD
BRUCE D. RAY
PETER A. MILWID
LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK dr LOCHHEAD, P C,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
July 6, 1982
Garfield County Planning and Zoning Comission
Post Office Box 640
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Re: Cattle Creek PUD
Dear Commission Members:
IOU GRAND AVENUE
P O. DRAWER 2030
GLENWOOD SPRINGS.COLORADO 81601
TELEPHONE: (303) 945-2261
JUL 7 1982
GiARiAL,) Lu.
This firm represents the Needham Ditch Company. As you may
know, the Needham Ditch traverses the property proposed to be
developed as the Cattle Creek PUD. It is our understanding that
the development proposal incorporates a realigning of the Ditch
and/or a traversing of the Ditch by roads within and to the
development.
No encroachment on the Ditch easement, or realignment of the
Ditch, may be made without the express permission of the Ditch
Company. By this letter, we are advising you that no agreement
has been made between the developer and the Ditch Company con-
cerning any alteration of the Ditch, the Ditch Company has not
given any permission to the developer to encroach on or alter
the Ditch, and the Ditch Company will not extend such permission
except under a suitable agreement.
We request, if approval of the proposed development is given
by the Commission, that such approval be expressly contingent
and conditional on an acceptable agreement being reached between
the Ditch Company and the developer concerning any matter
affecting the Ditch.
Your consideration of this matter is appreciated.
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK & OCHHEAD, P.0
es S. Loc ead
JSL:jas
cc: Dennis Stranger, Planning Direc
Earl G. Rhodes, Esq.
Albert D. "Wayne" Doyal
JOHN A. MC NEEL JR.
Sheriff
ID •
Office of the Sheriff
GARFIELD COUNTY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
PHONE 945-9151
Date: June 24, 19E2
To; Garfield County Planning Staff'
Ref: Cattle Creek P.U.D.
Dear Staff:
T. have discussed this P.U.O. at length with Ron Liston and have
obtained information on future developement of that area. This
includes the Cattle Creek P.U.D. and approved developement in the
surrounding area.
The Cattle Creek F.U.O. comprises of approximately 40 of the
potential population in this area. ''-ased on projected figures and
need for protection, 1 have set up some figures on providing for
that protection.
Developemont of this area will require at a very minimun 2 more
Deputies and another patrol vehicle in addition to what the Sheriffis
Department now has to patrol this area.
Ran Liston has informed me that Cattle Creek P.U.D. would do as
much as possible to help provide for the service until the tax
base is great enough to take up the expense. They are also work-
ing closely with us in providing security measures, emergency
preparations and other needed services to help Law enforcement and
Emergency services in that area.
Projected cost based on this years budget and anticipated cost
increases, the cost of 2 Deputies, a patrol car and safoty equip-
ment would be approximately 50,000.00. based on 401, of potential
population of the area that would be Cattle Creek r.u.D., a fair
figure for Cattle Creek P.L.D. would be 20,000.00 for initial
cost in provideing service.
Ron and myself will be working together as developement takes
place to coordinate efforts in provideing necessary services.
If anyone has any questions, please feel free to call me.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
lett
ohn A. McKeel Jr.
Sheriff, Garfield County
cc. Ron Liston
• •
Roaring Fork School District RE -1
Box 820
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
Telephone (303) 945-6558
ww1
JUL 8 198 l
GAitiFikia C . PLANNER
Garfield County Planning Department
2014 Blake Ave.
Glenwood Springs, Colorado, 81601
Re: Cattle Creek Ranch P.U.D.
NICHOLAS R. MASSARO, Superintendent
DWIGHT L. HELM, Assistant Superintendent
ROBERT D. LA E F OO N, Assistant Superintendent, Business
July 6, 1982
Dear Sir:
The Board of Education of the Roaring Fork School District is recommend-
ing the dollar value of one acre of land for each fifty dwelling units
be deposited with the Garfield County Commissioners to be used by the.
school district for the purchase of future school sites.
The present. P.U.D. plan calls for 786 dwelling units which therefore
would be the dollar value of 15.72 acres as the Board's request. The
Board also requests that developers be notified that extension of
bus service into the subdivision is not planned due to increased costs
of such service and also because the development will be retaining the
roads as privately owned and not part of the county system. Developers
should provide suitable bus pickup spots on County Road 113.
Sincerely yours,
d-(9‘64
Nicholas R. MAssaro
Superintendent
—a-c7i-t0
L P. ZANCANELLA, Chief
JAMES MASON, Asst. Chief
MARTIN ZEMLOCK, Captain
1110 W. LAPLANTE, Secy. Treas.
JAMES BLANCO, Lieut.
JACK JONES, Lieut.
Glenwood Springs Fire Department
Member of Colorado State Firemen's Association
806 Cooper
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
Garfield County Planning Dept.
2014 Blake Ave.
Glenwo.,,d Springs
Jut. 6 798P
�1�f1
Ref: Mitchell Creek PUD
1. Fire plugs and location of plugs looks good in lower section, but
1 feel the upper section needs more than one hydrant to properly protect
this area.
2. Road width is very narrow and would be bad in the winter if snow plowed
from road gets a big embankment.
3. Being the houses are up aginst a Wooded hillside proper landscaping and weed
control needs maintained to serve as fire break.
4. All wood stoves and fireplaces will be required to have a approved spark arrestor
cap.
5. Bridges and culverts need to be capable of holding a 45,000 pound fire truck.
Thank You
L.P.
I
7ibcanella=
7
1
• r/l4
JAGK NICKIIAU-S A.1\"D ASSC]GIATES, 11\7C.
1208 U.S. HIGHWAY #1, NORTH PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33408 m13051626-3800 TELEX 803473
April 19, 1982
Honorable Board of Commissioners
of Garfield County
Garfield County Courthouse
Post Office Box 640
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
Dear Commission Members:
Approximately a year ago, Mr Frank - . er commissioned me to
design a golf facility for h': attle re-: * •' our county. The
studies we have made and the mutual effort between Mr. Lerner and my
organization have proven to me without a doubt that the golf course will
be outstanding and that the development itself will be superior and of
benefit to the Rolling Fork Valley.
1 have been involved with projects in many corners of the world.
The setting, views and terrain at Cattle Creek should provide a golf
course and development of which we can all be proud.
JWN:md
1 •
the
land design
partnership
May 28, 1982
Paul Mannino
Staff Planner
Garfield County Planning Dept.
2014 Slake Ave.
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Cattle Creek Ranch
Dear Paul:
The following information regarding the Cattle Creek Ranch
planned unit development is attached herewith:
1. Traffic Study prepared by Eldorado Engineering.
2. Four letters of support from surrounding property owners.
3. Petition of public support.
With a project as large as the Cattle Creek Ranch P.U.D.,
there are numerous complex issues to be considered by our-
selves, Garfield County and the public. With this in mind,
it is my intentions to merely provide the P & Z members with
their initial copy of the rP:U.D. application and request the
scheduling of a P & Z site visit at our presentation to the
P & Z on Wednesday June 2. We will also be very interested
at that time to receive any comments from the P & Z and the
public regarding concerns they may have for the project.
During the month of June we would then investigate and re-
spond to these concerns.
1 do not propose a full presentation by the Cattle Creek P.U.D.
Design Team until the July 7th meeting of the P & Z. Nor do
1 anticipate a recommendation from the P & Z until July 7th or
after.
403 West First Street Glenwood Springs Colorado 81601 (303) 945.2246
• • •
Paul Mannino
May 28, 1982
Page 2
Hopefully, during the month of June, you and I will have
numerous opportunities to discuss and reach a consensus on
the various issues involved with the P.U.D. I know you have
been working diligently to assess the P.U.D. application and
I would request the opportunity to review any thoughts you
may have prior to Wednesday evening's P & Z meeting.
We are looking forward to the input of the staff, the P & Z,
the Commissioners and the public during the P.U.D review pro-
cess. Please do not hesitate to give me a call if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
//,---=2) ..g41100"
, ---- __, - '400.11k00016
Ronald B. Liston
Land Design Partnership, Inc.
RBL/pck
enclosures
Lo the river. He has 50 foot gtrcets but cannot pave unless passes most c;f Lo Lae -�
.,ants. He is on low end of rent cafe now with a few complaints.
Arnotd said the County wouldny require 24 foot of Chip an al and we should address
he roads now.
Barbara moved to recommend approval of the amendment with the following conditions:
1. All roads within the PUD be chip and seal, phasing to be determined by the commission -
2. The County receive an engineers statement as'to the ability of the existing water
nd sewer system to handle the camper park prior to the public hearing with the Commissioners.
John Tripp seconded the motion tion was ca fed unanimously.
eso
OURTH ITEM ON THE'AGENDA rCattle Creek PUD Amendment. 7 Davis -stated that this was a request to -allow an increase from 131 single family lots
Ron Liston, representing the de.Aeloper, handed out a supplement. He stated that the
o 786 units.
application is higher than the comprehensive plan suggests as density in rural serviceable
'teas. This project is capable of paying its own way from its tax base. Also, the
xomprehensive plan says we should encourage recreation industry, and this does that. The
)nly problem is where the project is located. Davis read letters from Sheriff McNeal with
3is concerns. Also, letters from Elizabeth Penfield, and James Peterson stating their
)pposition. Also submitted, a petition with approximately 70 signatures in opp
Gloria Gillespie spoke about esthetics, the development will be horrible. They are now
a community. It is not compatible with land and the people.. never happen.
Bob Donelon stated that a. $3,000,000 income from taxes may pP
Mary Donelon said Eagle County has same facility within 5 miles and we don't need another
e sLould maintain rural charactor of the area and 400 additional cars per hour does not do
this. It is in conflict with the comprehensive plan.
Harley Squires said that his ranch is next to it and people will be in his ranch and cattl
How will it affect his taxes?
Gary McNulty asked if this sort of density is allowed here, will it be allowed on his
ranch which is adjacent to it?
George Higby was concerned about the increase of traffic on 103 Road.
Frank Lerner stated that few ranches have sufficient water to develop like this. This
project has 54% open space and a 10 to 20 year build out.
Barbara asked if they had spoken to the school district?
Liston stated they would want cash instead of land.
Dick Piffer stated that 131 units wasn't bad but this would put a big demand on the
aquifer.
Rita Bell said that the road needed to be fixed now.
Davis gave the staff recommendation of denial due to noncompliance with the comprehensive
plan. on those roads.
Laverne said that it would frighten her to have that many people
Barbara Lorah abstained from voting and Laverne was appointedntosvote.
edid on Crown
John stated that we should listen to the adjacent proP y
Meadows and this is the same; it is not compatible with the area.
John moved to recommend denial based upon noncompatibility with the existing area and
no in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Also, it will impact County Road 100.
Laverne seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously.
FIFTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA -Delaney -Como Subdivision Sketch Plan.
Terry Bowman presented the application for the subdivision of a 4 -unit row house located
in West Glenwood. The applicant would like an exemption.
Barbara asked if they would chip and seal the road?
Rob Delaney stated they would chip and seal their ponion.
Barbara moved to recommend approval with the following conditions:
1. That an exegiption be granted with the understanding that if they wish to condominium-
ize the units, they will have to proceed through the full subdivision process.
2. That the roads be up to county standards and they participate in any road improvement
agreement on County Road 133.
Dale seconded the motion, 'and it carried unanimously.
SIXTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA -Pat Groom Commercial Park Speccsednear
Special
lUPrmitCattle Creek and Highway
Terry stated this was a request for an 8 unit park
82. afc.siecari rhe staff recommendation and agreed to
c -/)c
r•
John Tripp asked why the city was giving building permits south of Sunlight Bridge?
John Fernandez -adopted geological hazards ordinance. Mud flow, rock fall, hydrocompac-
tion problem.
FIFTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA -Cattle Creek P.U.D amendment iditilf 147f/
Davis stated this was a request to change from 131 units o 786 units.
Ron Liston reviewed original plan 963 acres, primary service road does not change. New
mixture of residential units, based on comp plan. It is directed at recreational activity
based on golf course, recreation center, and 54% of the project is open space.
They are ready to address the problems of impact:
1. Road impacts -Cattle Creek Road, paving from Highway 82 to the project, paving curves,
on 100 Road with chip and seal.
2. Fire Service -will build substation and equip it and tie into Carbondale Fire District.
3. Police -security will wire electronic system to all residential units to a central
control system.
Davis asked if the falls in management district B -2a comp plan density be same or less
existing development.
Ron replied that the water source from the well fields and the reservoir will be utilized.
Bill Lorah said that a series of water rights on Cattle Creek Ranch will have to convert
agricultural right to domestic rights.
John Tripp asked if a school site was still designated.
Ron said yes, the upper left corner could be designated, if desired.
H.P. Hanson -property owner West serviced by a ditch runs thru project not on map -remind
about agricultural consideration.
Ron said that 3 ditches run thru the project. The concerns about the ditch to make sure
the flow continues and access for what they need.
Sara McNulty, an adjoining property owner and surrounded by potential subdivisions, asked
why aren't the existing subdivisions filled first before new projects are allowed?
A site review was set for September 10.
SIXTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA -Pat Groom Commercial Park Special Use Permit
Terry reviewed the proposal for additional 8 new offices on 5.81 acres near Cattle Creek
and Highway 82.
Rich Paris stated there would be two additional buildings, landscaping and paved parking.
They are trying for new access to alleviate problem on frontage road now. He plans for
over 50 trees, split cedar fence in front to screen the buildings. The junk will be cleaned
up. Pat Groom will move completely off the property
SEVENTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA -Los Amigos P.U.D. amendment
Bill Caine highlighted the changes in the P.U.D. 145 unit reduction, road mileage reduced
from 11.4 to 8.5 miles. Apts on first filing serve CMC students. Change in site design on
single family dwellings. The entire project will be on cnetral water system (2 storage tanks
adequate to accommodate entire development) with fire hydrants every 600 feet. Asking for
action on amended plan 1. The original plan was not feasible at this time due to monetary
factors. 2. Market conditions have changed.
Dean Gordon discussed the utility concept. It hasn't changed from the original much.
Sanitation District boundaries are set and remain the same. All lots on central water system.
Arnold asked if there was a problem with grade on internal roads?
Davis stated that he also was concerned with the main road. He felt Leonard could review
and make comments.
John Stanford responded to the concerns raised by Dean Moffatt and made clarifications
as per handout on the objectives of the origin and amended P.U.D.
Barbara Lorah asked if the same number of units on central sewer as original plan?
How will this impact financial picture of metro district?
Bill Caine said that the units have decreased. The cost
Dean said that the cost will be adequeate to sustain the
will not make a substantial difference.
Rod Anderson is interested in college development concern
units on sewer system in relation to the cost of colleges tap
storage for fire protection?
Final vn and Ai l an were appointed to vote.
than
some
passed on to the homeowners.
system. The increased cost
for aquifer, number of
fees. What is the amount of
JOHN A. MC NEEL JR.
Sheriff
Office of the Sheriff
GARFIELD COUNTY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
PHONE 945-9151
September 14, 1981
Garfield County Commissioners
Planning and Zoning
Dear Sirs:
1 have just reviewed the PUD applications on both the Cattle Creek
Ranch and The Strang Ranch and feel that 1 must express some concerns.
1 also wish to express my appreciation for the opportunity to review
these plans, thanks to Davis.
Due to the type of developements and the locations, there are some
problems that should be looked into and planning done to avoid some
serious problems that could develope. It is a lot easier to prepare
for these ahead of time.
Because of the locations of these developements and a type of remote—
ness along with being a higher class of developement, it creates a
problem for the Garfield County Sheriff's Department to provide the
type of protection that we should without additional manpower and
equipment. Also this type of developement creates a real target for
the professional burglar and thief as they feel that it is far enough
away from the beaten path so to speak to make it easy to get away with
a crime. Lt the present time the Garfield County Sheriff's Department
is only able to get this area patroled once a night provided that there
is not other emergencies.
The location also creates a problem for Fire protection, Ambulance
service and other emergency services because of the distance necessary
to travel. Also a developement in this area would create more demands
for Search and Rescue as more people will be hiking, hunting ctc. and
getting lost or hurt.
1 realize that there are plans for security, but security forces alone
cannot provide full protection and will need extensive help from the
Garfield County Sheriff's Department,
Thank you very much for the opportunity to express my concerns and if
there are further questions, please feel free to call on me and I will
be happy to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
)•,, AL -
John A, McNeel. Jr.
Sheriff, Garfield County
•
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
PROJECT NAME: Cattle Creek PUD (Sketch Plan)
OWNER: Cattle Creek Ranch, Joint Venture, Aspen, CO
REPRESENTATIVE: Frank Lerner
Box 9140
Aspen, CO 81611
PROJECT COORDINATOR:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER & SEWER:
EXISTING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
Ron Liston and Parry Thomas of Land Design Partner-
ship
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
945-2246
Portions of Sections 5, 6, 7, & 8 -Township 7 South,
Range 87 West. Approximately 8 miles east of
Highway 82. County Roads 100 & 113.
There are a total of 963 acres to be developed
with 786 dwelling units. Of this total, 55%
is being proposed as open space. Within this
open space there is an 18 hole golf course
and an equistrian center. The gross density
is .8 dwelling units per acre.
From the creation of a water and sanitation district.
the water source being a series of wells along
Cattle Creek, storage from a one million gallon
tank to be located in the southeast corner of
the proposal. The sewer plan is to be located
along Cattle Creek but downstream from the
well location.
PUD (Zoning approved for 131 single family
residences on November 1, 1977).
PUD (Modified to allow for 786 single family
residences).
North - A/R/RD
East - A/R/RD
South - A/R/RD
West - A/R/RD and 0/8
1. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A. The project lies within district "B", a rural serviceable area which shall not
have a density greater than one unit per 2 acres. New development may have the
same density as the existing subdivision. In this case, the existing subdivisions
are Panorama Ranches which has one unit/5T acres and Cattle Creek PUD, which has
a density of one unit per 7+ acres. Further, the Plan requires all new development
within district "B" to maintain the existing level of adequate and dependable
community services and not create on additional burden on their services.
B. Housing Policies: The county shall encourage residential development to occur
in areas which can be served by existing technical services and have adequate
public road access.
C. Roads: Under the transportation section of the Comnreheisive Plan, it states "Roads
shall be located and designed so as to minimize undue land speculation and the untimely
conversion of productive agricultural land." (page 23, Policies #11)
D. Community Services: The county shall encourage new development to locate in
areas where the existing community services have capacity to absorb growth.
Il. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The project straddles Cattle and Coulter Creeks which
converges at the westerly edge of the property. Presently, there are approximately
250 acres of irrigated pasture and hayground along Cattle Creek. The remaining
agricultural land is being farmed as dry land wheat. The site topography varies
from gently rolling to steep slopes. The native vegetation consists primarily
of grasses, sage brush, and oak brush.
Page 17
B. Project Description A recreational oriented PUD consisting of 963 acres to
be developed into 786 dwelling units, an eighteen hole golf course and equestrian
center. Approximately 55% of the site will be open space (including golf course
and equestrian center). A small commercial center is proposed along County
Road 113 in the west central portion of the development.
III. MAJOR CONCERNS AND ISSUES
A.
Staff comments:
1. 11/21/77 - Cattle
family residences
8/5/80- Board of
until 9/1/82, for
Creek PUD was officially rezoned allowing 131 single
which equates to 1 dwelling unit per 7.4 acres.
County Commissioners granted an extension of time,
developer to comply with the terms of the Subdivision
Improvements Agreement.
11/30/80- Filing #1 of Cattle Creek Subdivision recorded (67 lots on 11-76 acres)
9/14/81- Planning Commission recommended denial of a proposal to amend
the PUD which would nave increased the number of single family residences
from 131 to 786 which equates to a density of 1 dwelling unit per 1.2
acres. The recommendation for denial was based on non -compatibility
with the existing area and non-compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
(see page 37 ).
10/81- Applicant withdrew application.
This revised proposal differs from the proposal which the Planning Commission
recommended denial on in September of 1981 only in minor ways. For instance,
the number of proposed dwelling units was, and still in, 786; road
circulation is basically unchanged. Lot configuration has been altered;
zone district designations and a reduction in commercial area from 17 to
to 7 acres.
2. This proposal lies outside the limits of any taxing fire district.
3. The proposed off-site road improvements on both county roads 100 and 113 each
include the securing of additional right-of-way. Staff has concerns as
to the possible ramifications caused by Garfield County condeming properties
to facilitate private development. There have been no improvements
proposed tor County Road 103 which may prove to be impacted to a heavy
extent if this proposal is approved.
Leonard Bowlby, the County Road and Bridge Supervisor, indicated that
the proposed additional units would tax his department in regard to
maintenance, repairs, and snow removal regardless of the extent of off
site improvements along County Road 100 and 113.
4. The Comprehensive Plan encourages this form 9f growth to nccur. Pram the urban
areas outward and not vise -versa. Consequently, the proposed density might
be considered inappropriate at this time.
The following paragraph from Section 5.01 of the subdivision regulations
gives guidance as to proposals which may be appropriate at some time in
the near future but are not appropriate at this time:
"The commission of the Board may deem land premature for subdivision when
growth patterns of such form and physical shape are created that
governmental inefficiencies, duplications of facilities and unnecessary
public costs and financial burdens result from providing the extension
of public services and public support facilities which cannot be accomplished
in a planned, ordered, or efficient manner, or when the submittal indicates
that services or resources necessary for the viability of the proposed
subdivision are neither assured nor reasonably certain."
5. Historically, the Cattle Creek Area has been dominated by large ranches.
Within this past five years, the area has experienced a marked increase
in residential subdivisions of land into smaller parcels of approximately
five acres. Examples of these are Panorama Ranches, Kings Row, and Cattle
Creek PUD. (See assessor's map, page 38 ).
Even with these residential subdivisions, the character of the area remains
rural/ranch. Approval of 786 dwelling units would definitely alter
this existing character. This is not to say that the basic design, i.e.:
road layout, lot configuration, usage of open -space and buffering is
not compatible to the physical properties of the site.
Page 18
•
6. A development of this magnitude will definitely impact all Garfield
County services to include: police protection, fire protection, road
maintenance and snow removal, school bussing, medical emergency and
county government. A thorough analysis of the impact to Garfield
County services would be necessary to reasonably assess this proposal.
7. The site plan for this proposal has been designed around the road
network which was originally approved for the 131 dwelling units.
To increase the denisty by six fold as proposed, and maintain the
adequate open space, the developer has used such techniques as
cluster development and reduced lot sizes. The plan is certainly
ambitious and would require great sums of capital outlay on the part
of the developer. Sufficient bonding would be essential to insure
that the county did not incur development costs if the proposal were
approved and the developer decided to abandon the project.
8. The following zone districts are being proposed within the FUD:
1. Greenbelt - areas for recreation, farming, and ranching.
2. Recreational Services - clubhouse, clinics, restaurants, retail
commercial shops and open space.
3. Residential/Single Family Estate Lot (20,000 square feet minimum
lot size)
4. Residential/Single Family Golf Lot (12,000 square feet minimum
lot size)
5. Residential/Cluster Housing (minimum lot size varies from 8,000
square feet to 800 square feet)
6. Residential/Multi-Family (minimum lot size varies from 8,000
square feet to 800 square feet)
7. Commercial/Village Store (Neighborhood retail commercial land
personal service outlets)
There are four different zone districts being proposed for a variety
in residential housing. However, by the relative small nature of the
minimum lot sizes, the housing appears to be geared toward an urban
setting. It is this factor above all others, which renders the proposal
non -compatible with the historic surrounding land uses at this time.
I. FINDINGS:
1. The applicant has followed all applicable regulations for the processing
of this application.
2. A similar proposal to this, by the same applicant, on the same property
was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission on 9/14/81.
V. RECOMMENDATION
Denial. The project is incompatible with the present land uses in the
area and inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 19
Pt ECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMONS
PROJECT NAME: Cattle Creek PUD
OWNER: Cattle Creek Ranch, Joint Venture, Aspen, CO
REPRESENTATIVE: Frank Lerner
Box 9140
Aspen, CO 81611
PROJECT COORDINATOR: Ron Liston of Land Design Partnership
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
945-2246
LOCATION: Approximately 8 miles east of Highway 82
on Cattle Creek Road
SITE DATA: There are a total of 963 acres to accommodate
786 dwelling units. Of this total, 55% in bein,'
proposed as open space. Within this open
space there is an 18 hole golg course and an
equistrian center. The gross density is .8
dwelling units per acre.
WATER:
From a central distribution syste, source being
a series of wells along Cattle Creek, storage
from a one million gallon tank to be located
in the southeast vorner of the proposal.
SEWER: From an on-site central collection system with
a plan to be located along Cattle Creek but
downstream from the well locations.
EXISTING ZONING: PUD (Zoning approved for 131 single family
residences in 1977, average density of .1
dwelling units per acre).
PROPOSED ZONING: PUD (Modified to allow for 786 single family
residences average density of .1 dwelling unit
per acre).
ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD (on all sides)
MITIGATION/IMPROVEMENTS:
Police- Electronic surveilance on-site, private
security patrolmen, an up -front fee of $20,000
to Garfield County.
Dog Catcher- Security patrolment to enforce covenants.
Fire=
Health Care-
Roads-County
are-Roads-County Roads 100 6 113 -
WATER F SEWER -
COMMENTS:
Denote property, build and equip fire station.
Presently working with fire district to adjust
response boundary.
Ambulance to be included in fire station.
Extensive improvements.
Will propose to form a water and sanitation district
if agreeable to Commissioners.
This proposal is not directly addressed by the Comprehensive Plan in that the developer
is claiming that he is addressing a second home buyers market.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
1977 -Cattle Creek PUD was officially rezoned and subdivided allowing 131 single family
residences.
9/14/81 -Planning Commission recommended denial of a proposal to amend the PUD which
would have increased the number of single family residences from 131 to 786. The
recommendation for denial was based on non -compatibility with the existing area
and non-compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
" 4 0 • 01-.9
41111oinir ?If39
• T,
)324 I
41
K •
Creek
Qedith
IG -M B p
MT -4,1
2.59 tt, Cf it 1,F,J No
2393.i3! C.56"--:
IG. At /PANORAMA
FiANCHES
I(.-r-,Ti-) tiq
„e?
1L
(iiroT.Th ‘,11110 ;
1.• • 1,"
Cr, i2 • .„,t I
(H)
(y2
€3)
il
RANCH AT ROARING FORK.'
246i-011.00 016--
103-891
S E E M A P
NO. .11239/ - 0
44
514
r
ti';:+ r •
5 .Y1/;1
s
CATHERINE
/NT(
)1 i4 hi
-----/._
r 1 -IL -6114 .0
I,- 4-4!
t:
SEE i MAP NO. _51.J.,- M F' NO
+ ir i
',,,,(A.-- -- .t7-,_ _ r,,L. 0,?4,
..-.• t -7
2391:- 31 , ,.
,s 1;3-------.AOAPiii6
4 . ... ,C, 2391. 32 ts.., •
I L 01____},_
e ' ,S Ch 1, -
tsTAIES
C 0 - L.V1 2
, . ../
I '1
J
20
2-9
/
d,
0
Li
()
U.41
CD.
•02 4
1
E MAP
NO 2391-33-
k. 5
66ef2L,
-c. 5 .�
C `7
.e , g
e
ay -o0 -ca6
0_aa -0o,
a a c
05 -oo - C C
05- CO- Ca /
►r/ G'er ran L
6nzt-7 tio
6- 5--peci irnc o
- CLf C+Ke scs . ,T.scc,
- l r Fs ri'J
X89 -3/1_00 -009
o,= -60 -Ccs - 1ei-rcA/F,/ernw
- 0 •- 00 3 -- daorevc€ink' Wores
g, 40 co 5 -terwct,/ F Leroef
EL AA
Q o A60(a
oa'7
a -
cc --653 ---- , 1 aLobilt.
a/ficr-rrux.
l'7
•
5 )7
day
06I
0D3
cocurrifL( Z r/ 1)U .•
.
e c.ka.
0 / 0 -- L Q'p i ( 't& 5) oar)
44/k _Assoc
(7 3 - cc --0 3 - sfrarvi ciroei - • s -/J e
c ,rg
R,Dj CT rNI-O M ATI ON AND STAFF CO!,!MENTS
CATTLE CREEK RANCH PUD (?MODIFICATION TO THE PUD AND SKETCH PLAN)
OWNER: Cattle Creek ranch, Joint Venture,
Aspen, Colorado.
tip 1PRESENTATIVE:
PROJECT COORDINATOR:
-rank Lerner
t Durant
, CO^r, -
`on - _ = ton and Parry Thomas of Land
-sign Partnership
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
945-2246
?OCATION: Portions of Sections 5 & e, Township 7
South, Range 87 West. Approximately
8 miles east of Highway 82. County Roads
100 & 113.
SITE DATA:
WATER AND SEWER:
3
There are a total of acres that will
be developed with 131 dwelling units.
Because of the clustering of the housing,
5896 is being proposed as open space. Within
this open space, there is an equestrian
center and related uses. The gross
density is .4 units rer acre, (or
1 unit for each 2.+ acres) .
From the creation of a water and sanitation
district, the water source being a series
of wells along Cattle Creek, storage
ro m41 , gallon tank to be located
in the southeast corner of the proposal.
The sewer plant is to be located along
Cattle Creek but downstream from the well
location.
!XISTING ZONING: PUD (Zoning approved for 131 single family
residences on 960 acres on November 1, 1977) .
PROPOSED ZONING: PUD (Modified to allow for 131 dwelling units
on . acres).
ADJACENT ZONING:
P3
North: A/R/RD
South: A/R/RD
East: A/R/RD
West: A/R/RD and O/S
1. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
A. The project lies within district "B", a rural serviceable area which shall not
have a density greater than one unit per 2 acres. New development may have the
same density as the existing subdivision. In this case, the existing subdivisions
are Panorama Ranches which has one unit/5+ acres and Cattle Creek PUD, which has
a density of one unit per 7+ acres. Further, the Plan requires all new
development within district s'B" to maintain the existing level of adequate and
dependable community Cervices and not create an additional burden on174T-services.
B. Housing Policies: The county shall encourage residential development to
occur in areas which can be served by existing technical services and have adequate
public road access.
C. Roads: Under the transportation section of the Comprehensive Plan, it states
"Roads shall be located and designed so as to minimize undue land speculation
and the untimely conversion of productive agricultural land." (Page 23, Policies #11).
D. Community Services: The county shall encourage new development to locate in
areas where the existing community services have capacity to absorb growth.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
A. Site Description: The project straddles Cattle and Coulter Creeks which con-
-7-
vel es a t theester1y - dge of tLe proerty. I recent there are apprex i ately
250 acres of irrigated yesture and hayground along Cattle Creek. remaining
agricultural land is being farmed as dry land wheat. The site t : r:yphy varies
from gently rolling to steep slopes. The native vf_getation consists primarily
of grasses, sage brush and oak brush.
D. Project Description: A recreation oriented PUD consisting of 319 acres to be
developed into 131 dwelling units in a ":uux'y ranch" setting, including extensive
equestrian facilities and other recreational amenities. Anprox mately 56% of
the site will be open space.
171. `_IA,_iOR CONCERNS AND ISS6:ES:
A. History of the prorosal:
11/21/77 - Cattle Creek PUD was officially rezoned allowing 131 single family
residences which equates to 1 dwelling unix per 7.4 acres.
11/30/80 - Filing #1 of Cattle Creek Subdivision recorded (67 lots on 478 acres).
9/14/81 - Planning Commission recommended denial of a proposal to amend
the PUD which would have increased the number of single family residences from
131 to 786 which equates to a density of 1 dwelling unit per 1.2 acres. The
recommendation for denial was based on non -compatibility with the existing
area and non-compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
10/81 - Applicant withdrew application.
7/7/82 - Planning Commission recommended denial of a proposal to amend the PUD which
would have increased the number of dwelling units from 131 to 786, a density of
1 dwelling unit per 1.2 acres. The recommendation for denial was based on
incompatibility with the surrounding land uses, and inconsistency with the intent
of the Comprehensive Plan.
8/16/82 - Applicant withdrew application.
B. Concerning land u. es and zoning:
1. Historically, the Cattle Creek Area has been dominated by large ranches.
Within this past five years, the area has experienced a marked increase
in residential subdivisions of land into smaller parcels. Examples of
these are Fanor'ama Ranches, Kings Row, and Cattle Creek PUD. Even with
these residential subdivisions, the character of the area remains rural/
ranch.
2. The following zone districts are proposed within the PUD:
a. Greenbelt - recreational and agricultural Uses, and public facilities;
b. Recreational Services District - clubhouse, equestrian center, restaurant,
retail commercial shops related to recreational uses, ranch/property
management offices, and dwelling units for employees of the recreational
facilities;
c. Residential/Single Family District - (20,000 square feet minimum lot
area);
d. Residential/Cluster Housing District - (minimum lot size varies from
800 square feet to 10,000 square feet).
3. The Greenbelt zone district name should be changed to Open Space to
parallel the zone reap.
4+. The Recreational Service District name should be changed to Recreational
District to parallel the zone map.
5. The "bar and lounge" use proposals in the Recreational District does not
seem to be appropriate at this location and should be eliminated. The
proposed restaurant and retail commercial shops must be tightly controlled.
The intent is not to create a commercial center at this time and the
zoning regulation should reflect that intent.
6. It should be noted that live-in maid and caretaker quarters will be
permitted in the residential zone provided they are attached to the
principal dwelling unit.
7. As a matter of consistency, minimum lot sizes should be provided for the
Open Space and Recreation Districts.
-8-
410
8. A sethack :•:°Oviwi on should be make for reverse ce her lots.
9. Section X of the Sone District text pertaining to iF-:G should be
eliminated and references made to the (a' -'field county sign code.
Provisions for more stringent sign r'equire tints should be included
within the covenants.
10. The developer should explain the rational for an additional parking
space for home occupation.
Some additional guest parking may be .. _ ._ _ n the cluster housing
areas. The par'"�in£ seace_s for the res eleant use seems slightly low.
An evolving national standard is 4.5 to 5.5 spaces per 1000 square
feet of gross floor area for restaurants and retail areas. Additional
parking for caretakers and maids should be required. "All weather
surfacing" of parking areas should be defined.
12. The '=x; 2usicn noted in Section XII (,.ages iiT - 33 of the Develoement
Guide) are not necessary in a F'UD conflict with county regulations.
The exclusions are not possible.
13. It should he understood by the developer that Garfield County is not
adopting the entire development guide but will incorporate only the zone
district text in any PUD requiring resolution. The development guide
can be enforced by the developer - the county will enforce applicable
county regulations. The county will not refuse to issue any building
permits, certificates of occupancy, sign permits or any other permits if
all county regulations are complied with. County zoning, subdivision,
design and other regulations shall be The minimum standards and the only
standards enforced by the county.
C. Concerning the Site Plan:
1. The overall layout of the subdivision is very good. The relationship
of the residential areas and access to open space and recreational
facilities is appropriate for the type of development proposed.
The site design is the same as the central portion of the '786' plan
previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. The design is a good
example of efficient design utilizing PUD technique of clustering
housing, preserving large tracts of open space, minimizing infrastructures,
and promoting harmonious design.
The recreational amenities are high quality and exceptional for 131
dwelling units. The impression will be a relatively low density
recreational/residential development.
2. The major problem with the design that is proposed is primarily centered
around the propo,ed cluster housing and particularly potential fire
hazards.. The development will he developed with a central water source
and fire hydrants will be placed throughout the area. However, the following
should be considered:
a. Petitioning into the Carbondale Rural Fire Protection District (the
developer has approached the district).
b. Developing a fire protection plan in conjunction with the Fire District.
c. Participating in providing fire protection equipment in the area.
d. Training perm nent staff as qualified volunteer firemen..
e. Nor developing the cluster housing portions of the development until
the above measures have been taken.
3. The sewage treatment plant,water treatment plant and weer tank should be
shown on suhseauent plats. •
4. The County Road Supervisor has indicated th oads5hovld h eaintained by
a Home Owners Association.
5. It is recognized that the offsite road impacts will be population driven
and that this development of 131 units will not create any more impacts
than the approved 131 units. However, the County Road Supervisor has
identified two areas of the county road that should be improved in order
to accommodate this development.
-9-
a.
Additional shaping and gx'avel on 113 Road adjacent to the site
and maintenance of this section,.
b. A guard rail; approximately 200-250 feet of guard lc'cated a1.out
1 mile down the road from the site.
The developer should also aEr'ee to participate in future road ii:pr'ovements
along with other lot owners in the area if an equitable formula is devised.
6. It hou1d be noted on the rezoning resolution and uhse :uent plats that
the ...a'r..mum number of dwelling uri:tS is -_31.
7. Pedestrian ways should be labeled on subsecuent plats.
8. Tn __:toning and su?idivision action will include vacation of existing PUD
Z01 -1 -Ing and subdivision.
FINDINGS :
1. The applicant has followed all applicable regulations for the processing of
Ceis application.
2. That proper publication and public notice was provided as recurred by law.
3. That the meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete,
_;rat all pertinent facts, matters, and issues were submitted and that all
i_ terested parties were heard at that hearing.
4. That the proposed zoning is In compliance with the recon.:,_e=_-:-es set
`orth in the raster plan for. the unincorporated arra of the county.
5. The sketch pian conforms to rection 4.01 , Sketch Plan requirements or the
Garfield County Subdivision regulations.
6. The sketch plan conforms to the requirements of the zone district in which
the development is located.
7. That for the above stated and other reasons, the sketch plan appears to
aual?fy for approval by this Board.
major co cern with the "786" plan ocivcd by the Planning Commission in
July of 1982 was the relationship of the proposal to the Comprehensive
Plan and the appropriateness of the large number of dwelling units at this
location at this time.
The present proposal meets the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. The
costs of providing county services to this area will, at orst, remain the
same as the costs of providing services to the • 1 units. In fact,
due to the compact design of the subdivision, the provisions of services will
probably be somewhat less.
The proposal offers a distinct alternative to typical 5 acre subdivisions by pre-
serving large maintainable, formable and, most important, useable tracts of
open space. The Planning staff and Planning Commission have worked through
numerous "5 acre type" subdivisions and have found that even this arbitrary
standard has distinct design problems at tires (for example, Hawkridge; the developer
could demonstrate that good design necessitated smaller lots). The Comprehensive
Plan guidelines are appliedeAe a case by case basis.
The present proposal must be reviewed in terms of its impacts on adjacent
properties. Here again, the present proposal, phy=sically has less impact
on adjacent neighbors than the approved 131 units simply because the units
are further away from adjacent property owners.
The areas being vacated from the present subdivision plan will remain in
ranching. This area is not considered "prime agricultural land" in the
traditional sense but can be ranched under the present proposal.
Finally, the concerns have been expressed that the present proposal is merely
the first phase of a much larger development. This is not necessarily grounds
to deny the proposal. The Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners
have the authority to deny future development of the property if they determine
that the future develor rnent proposals are not appropriate. It is f_ ..:less to
iyy r_culate about the :t:. ,c:• i ion of the ,croper'ty at this t en
{�11'� �...�i -1Ji t�A••' -�t 1; _ .i �- .L y .`rid Llli_ r`. -:iii ilr. C.,,_....i - i.-.. t-�=[. �,�.._,--nta-`'t: Cr:�.
/ qAJ , 4. Ivvlrior/s. ra . Gr7, od .ryrvT1d"►
oval with the following conditins:
1, Staff comments III. B. 3-5 and III. B. 7-13 be considered conditions
of approval.
2. Staff comments III. C. 2 - 8 be cons dgyred conditions of approval.
/4÷-1
-11-
3
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS (r 4101 /—,10 —
�,,
CATTLE CREEK RANCH PUD (MODIFICATION TO THE PUD AND SKETCH PLAN)
OWNER: Cattle Creek Ranch, Joint Venture,
Aspen, Colorado.
:E?RESENTATIVE :
PROJECT COORDINATOR:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER AND SEWER:
Trank Lerner
730 Test Durant
Aspen, CO P1611
Pon Liston and Parry Thomas of Land
Design Partnership
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
945-2246
Portions of Sections 5 & 8, Township 7
South, Range 87 West. Approximately
8 miles east of Highway 82. County Roads
100 & 113.
There are a total of 313 acres that will
be developed with 131 dwelling units.
Because of the clustering of the housing,
58% is being proposed as open space. Within
this open space, there is an equestrian
center and related uses. The gross
density is .4 units per acre, (or
1 unit for each 2.4 acres).
From the creation of a water and sanitation
district, the water sourcebeing a series
of wells along Cattle Creek, storage
from a 300,000 gallon tank to be located
in the southeast corner of the proposal.
The sewer plant is to be located along
Cattle Creek but downstream from the well
location.
EXISTING ZONING: PUD (Zoning approved for 131 single family
residences on 960 acres on November 1, 1977).
PROPOSED ZONING: PUD (Modified to allow for 131 dwelling units
on 313 acres).
ADJACENT ZONING:
North: A/R/RD
South: A/R/RD
East: A/R/RD
West: A/R/RD and 0/S
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
A. The project lies within district "B", a rural serviceable area which shall not
have a density greater than one unit per 2 acres. New development may have the
same density as the existing subdivision. In this case, the existing subdivisions
are Panorama Ranches which has one unit/5+ acres and Cattle Creek ?UD, which has
a density of one unit per 7+ acres. Further, the Plan requires all new
development within district HB?! to maintain the existing level of adequate and
dependable community services and not create an additional burden on these services.
B. Housing Policies: The county shall encourage residential development to
occur in areas which can be served by existing technical services and have adequate
public road access.
C. Roads: Under the transportation section of the Comprehensive Plan, it states
"Roads shall be located and designed so as to minimize undue land speculation
and the untimely conversion of productive agricultural land." (Page 23, Policies fi11)
D. Community Services: The county shall encourage new development to locate in
areas where the existing community services have capacity to absorb growth.
Il. DE CRIPTI'ON OF THE PROPOSAL:
A. Site Description: The project r trad'_les Cattle rand Coulter Crerl.ks which c::;.-
(1)
40
il
,'erges at the wester y edge of the property. Prese y, there are approximately
250 acres of irrigated pasture and hayground along Cattle Creek. The remaining
,ricultural land is being farmed as dry land wheat. The site topography varies
NI from gently rolling to steep slopes. The native vegetation consists primarily
of grasses, sage brush and oak brush.
Project Description: A recreation oriented PUD consisting of 319 acres to be
developed into 131 dwelling units in a"luxury. ranch" setting, including extensive
equestrian facilities and other recreational amenities. Approximately 58% of
the site will be open space.
:i. MAJOR CONCERNS AND ISSUES:
History of the proposal:
11/21/77 - Cattle Creek PUD was officially rezoned allowing 131 single family
residences which equates to 1 dwelling unit per 7.4 acres.
11/30/80 - Filing m1 of Cattle Creek Subdivision recorded (67 lots on 476 acres).
g/14/81 - Planning Commission recommended denial of a proposal to amend
the PUD which would have increased the number of single family residences from
131 to 786 which equates to a density of 1 dwelling unit per 1.2 acres. The
recor_nendation for denial was based on non -compatibility with the existing
area and non-compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
10/81 - Applicant withdrew application.
7/7/82 - Planning Commission recommended denial of a proposal to amend the PUD which
would have increased the number of dwelling units from 131 to 786, a density of
1 dwelling unit per 1.2 acres. The recommendation for denial was based on
incompatibility with the surrounding land uses, and inconsistency with the intent
of the Comprehensive Plan.
8/16/82 - Applicant withdrew application.
10/1138¢_- Planning Commission approved the present proposal.
D. Concerning land uses and zoning:
1. Historically, the Cattle Creek Area has been dominated by large ranches.
Within this past five years, the area has experienced a marked increase
in residential subdivisions of land into smaller parcels. Examples of
these are Panorama Ranches, Kings Row, and Cattle Creek ?UD. Even with
these residential subdivisions, the character of the area remains rural/
ranch.
2. The following zone districts are proposed within the PUD:
a. Greenbelt - recreational and agricultural uses, and public facilities;
b. Recreational Services District - clubhouse, equestrian center, restaurant
retail commercial shops related to recreational uses, ranch/property
management offices, and dwelling units for employees of the recreational
facilities;
c. Residential/Single Family District - (20,000 square feet minimum lot
area);
d, Residential/Cluster Housing District - (minimum lot size varies from
800 square feet to 10,000 square feet).
The Greenbelt zone district name should be changed to Open Space to
parallel the zone trap.
The Recreational Service District name should be changed to Recreational
District to parallel the zone map.
The "bar and lounge" use proposals in the Recreational District does not
seem to be appropriate at this location and should be eliminated. The
proposed restaurant and retail commercial shops must be tightly controlled.
The intent is not to create a commercial center at this time and the
zoning regulation should reflect that intent.
6 It should be noted that live-in maid and caretaker quarters will be
permitted in the residential zone provided they are attached to the
principal dwelling unit.
As a matter of consistence, ^ _.. n lot sizes should be provided for the
Oren Space and Recreation _.. . _ - lets.
(2)
A setback vision should be made for reve corner lots.
9. Section X of the Zone District text pertaining to signs should be
eliminated and references made to the Garfield County sign code.
Provisions for more stringent sign requirements be included
within the covenants.
10. The developer should explain the rational for an additional parking
space for home occupation.
11. Some additional guest parking may be needed in the cluster housing
areas. The parking spaces for the restaurant use seeris slightly low.
An evolving national standard is 4.5 to 5.5 spaces per 1000 square
feet of gross floor area for restaurants and retail areas. Additional
parking for caretakers and maids should be required. "All weather
surfacing" of parking areas should be defined.
12. The exclusion noted in Section XII (paeres III - 33 of the Development
Guide) are not necessary in a PUD & conflict with county regulations.
The exclusions are not possible.
It should be understood by the developer that Garfield County is not
adopting the entire development guide but will incorporate only the zone
district text in any PUD requiring resolution. The development guide
can be enforced by the developer - the county will enforce applicable
county regulations. The county will not refuse to issue any building
permits, certificates of occupancy, sign permits or any other permits if
all county regulations are complied with. County zoning, subdivision,
design and other regulations shall be the minimum standards and the only
standards enforced by the county.
C. Concerning the Site Plan:
1. The overall layout of the subdivision is very good. The relationship
of the residential areas and access to open space and recreational
facilities is appropriate for the type of development proposed.
The site design is the same as the central portion of the '786' plan
previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. The design is a good
example of efficient design utilizing PUD technique of clustering
housing, preserving large tracts of open space, minimizing infrastructures,
and promoting harmonious design.
The recreational amenities are high quality and exceptional for 131
dwelling units. The impression will be a relatively low density
recreational/residential development.
The major problem with the design that is proposed is primarily centered
around the proposed cluster housing and particularly potential fire
hazards. The development will be developed with a central water source
and fire hydrants will be placed throughout the area. However, the following
should be considered:
a. Petitioning into the Carbondale Rural Fire Protection District (the
developer has approached the district).
b. Developing a fire protection plan in conjunction with the Fire District.
1
c. Participating in providing fire protection equipment in the
d. Training permanent staff as qualified volunteer firemen..
e. Not developing the cluster housing portions of the development
the above measures have been taken.
The sewage treatment plant,Water treatment plant and water
shown on subsequent plats.
The County Road Supervisor has indicated the subdivision roads should
maintained by a Home Owners :association.
5. It is recognized that the offsite road impacts will be
and that this development of 131 units will not create
than the ap roved i31 units. :e:.ever, the County Road
identified -areas of the county " -d that should be
to accommodate this devele-
area.
until
tank should be
(3)
be
population driven
any more impacts
Supervisor has
improved in order
a.
il;
ciao 200 50
1
The developer should
roa
also agree to
I
participate in future road improvements
along with other lot owners in the area if an equitable formula is devised.
6. It should be noted on the rezoning resolution and subsequent plats that
the maximum number of dwelling units is 131.
Pedestrian ways should be labeled on subsequent plats.
The rezoning and subdivision action will include vacation of existing PHD
0010efrii.
zoning and subdivision.
9. Summary:
A major concern with the "786" plan reviewed by the Planning Commission in
July of 1982 was the relationship of the proposal to the Comprehensive
Plan and the appropriateness of the large number of dwelling units at this
location at this time.
The present proposal meets the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. The
costs of providing county services to this area will, at worst, remain the
same as the costs of providing services to the approved 131 units. In fact,
due to the compact design of the subdivision, the provisions of services will
probably be somewhat less.
The proposal offers a distinct alternative to typical 5 acre subdivisions
by preserving large maintainable, farmable and, most important, useable
tracts of open space. The Planning staff and Planning Commission have
worked through numerous "5 acre type" subdivisions and have found that even
this arbitrary standard has distinct design problems at times (for example,
Hawkridge; the developer could demonstrate that good design necessitated sinal
lots). The Comprehensive Plan guidelines are applied on a case by case basis
The present proposal must be reviewed in terms of its impact on adjacent
properties. Here again, the present proposal, physically has less impact
on adjacent neighbors than the approved 131 units simply because the units
are further away from adjacent property owners.
The areas being vacated from the present subdivision plan will remain in.
v . This area is not considered "prime agricultural land" in the
ltraditional sense tutcan be ranched under the present proposal.
Finally, the concerns have been expressed that the present proposal is
merely the first phase of a much larger development. This is not necessaril:
grounds to deny the proposal. The. Planning Commission and the Board of
County Commissioners have the authority to deny future development of the
property if they determine that the future development proposals are not
appropriate. It is fruitless to speculate about the ultimate disposition
of the property at this time, given the immediate past history of the
property and the Planning Commission recommendations.
Iv. FINDINGS
1. The applicant has followed all applicable regulations for the processing of
this application.
2. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law.
3. That the meeting 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 hearing.
4. That the proposed zoning is in comliance with the recommendations set forth
in the master plan for the unincorporated area of the county.
5. The sketch plan conforms to Section 4.01, Sketch Plan requirements of the
Garfield County Subdivision regulations.
6. The sketch plan conforms to the requirements of the zone district in which
the development is located.
7. That for the above stated and other reasons, the sketch plan appears to
qualify for approval by this Board.
EP'
V. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Approval with the following conditions:
1. Staff comments III. B. 3-5 and III. B. 7-13 be considered conditions
of approval.
2. Staff comments III. C. 2-8 be considered conditions of approval.
3. An area plan for the entire area be formulated including a capitol
improvement program before any approval of further development.
See minutes - Pages 6 to 9 .
71
C.