HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 01.09.2003BOCC 01/09/03 RWR
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
PURPOSE OF REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
SCOPE OF REQUEST:
Clustering Initiative:
Text Amendment to Garfield County
Zoning Resolution of 1978, and
Amendment to Subdivision Regulations
Of Garfield County, Colorado of 1984
To Allow for a reduction in minimum
Lot sizes in Zone Districts A/1, A/R/RD, and
R/L (Valley Floor) from Two Acres to
One Acre, based on a limitation to the total number
of lots that Would otherwise be allowed with a two
acre Minimum lot size, with additional lots allowed
by defined incentives, where
applicants create defined Greenbelts and
common Open Space on otherwise developable
land.
Garfield County Planning Commission
Zone District Minimum Lot Size Definitions
would be altered, conditionally, for A/I,
A/R/RD and R/L (Valley Floor). Definitions
would be added to define "Cluster," "Cluster
Option," "Yield," and "Allowable Yield."
Procedures would be modified to allow
applicants to present a clustering option
at Preliminary Plan. Other minor text alterations
would be made.
I. BACKGROUND FOR THE PROPOSAL
The Garfield County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners
have recently expressed concern that they are receiving "cookie cutter" subdivision
applications that minimize and try to avoid internal road requirement standards, fire and
emergency access issues, and attention to and preservation of natural drainages, land
features and constraints, historic irrigation practices, and buffering use with adjacent
property while taking all land out of any agriculturally productive operations and without
encouraging open space or sensitivity to land forms.
1
• •
Current regulations do not provide any incentive for developers to preserve developable
land area in Greenbelt or Common Open Space while preserving the number of
potentially developable lots, short of going through a PUD process which requires a re-
zoning. Where a re -zoning isn't appropriate, or an increase or change in overall
development density isn't being requested, developers are constrained from creative sub-
division applications within a parcel by a two acre minimum lot size in areas currently
zoned A/I, A/R/RD or R/L (Valley Floor).
Allowing for a smaller lot size, and the preservation of unique qualities and
characteristics of a parcel, while preserving overall density and neighborhood
characteristics and values implied in a Zone District Designation, requires a modification
of both the Zoning Resolution of 1978 and the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield
County, Colorado of 1984.
The intent of this proposal is to give a developer the flexibility to present a proposal that
is sensitive both to the internal qualities, constraints and attributes of a given parcel of
land and the flexibility to buffer the impacts of development on surrounding land uses. It
is intended to encourage open space, buffering, and to some small degree the preservation
of agricultural use and infrastructure.
A further intent of this proposal is to ensure that the value of the parcel for development
purposes is preserved. Preservation of that value is achieved in two ways. Development
costs are reduced when clustering is allowed given the same number of lots. In
clustering, the linear feet of required roadway, pipes, utilities and other factors are
reduced on a per lot basis, resulting in less infrastructure cost per lot. Modest incentives
are provided in this Proposal for additional lots, recognizing the costs involved in
providing a central water system (required for lots under two acres with ISDS systems)
and the preservation of percentages of Greenbelt and Common Open Space on otherwise
developable land.
II. PUBLIC NOTICE AND OUTREACH
Garfield County Planning Staff developed and circulated a Working Discussion Paper
dated July 9, 2002. This Working Paper was distributed internally, to the Planning
Commission, to the Board of County Commissioners, and placed on the county web site.
Notice of the availability of the Working Paper was also advertised in the regional
Planner's and Manager's Roundtable Newsletter mailing address list which reaches 170
respondents and includes all jurisdictions in Garfield County, and state and federal land
management agencies, and surrounding communities. A press release was developed
which resulted in front page coverage in the Glenwood Springs Post Independent
soliciting public review and comment. Electronic mail solicitations were sent out to more
than 30 review agencies, active land use attorneys and developers, and land use
consultants.
2
• •
Well over a dozen responses were received, some in written formats, some verbally in
person or over the telephone. All responses supported the general concept. Exceptions
are noted from some respondents: The DOW is concerned that placing density levels on
a parcel should be done in light of wildlife issues. (This is currently covered in
requirements under Section 4.70 of the Subdivision Regulations, and would not be
modified, nor would consultation requirements with DOW be altered). A concern was
expressed that lots under one acre in size would need special attention to ISDS
requirements. (Lots are still held at one acre in this version of the proposal) It was
suggested that lot allowance formulas be kept simple and access requirements for open
space areas not be altered from current practice. (No simple formula exists that would
cover all parcels fairly, thus the "Yield" definitions and process. Access and definitions
of Common Open Space and Greenbelt are retained as is).
Further staff and legal review surfaced a concern that not enough information may be
present at Sketch Plan to do a fair analysis of parcel constraints on which to base a fair
Yield Analysis. It was suggested that the Cluster Option, in the process, be moved from
Sketch Plan to Preliminary Plan, where an applicant could present a clustering option.
III. PROCESS ISSUES
One of the mandates to Staff was to keep Zoning Resolution and Subdivision Regulation
issues simple in exploring this Clustering Initiative. It was felt by staff that if we made
this process any harder, without incentives, for developers of smaller parcels that didn't
lend themselves to PUD applications, we would garner none of the intended benefits in
allowing clustering.
Staff explored a variety of alternatives that would allow an applicant to come in with a
clustering option right at the very beginning, as a Sketch Plan. None of those options
proved fair or viable. Land parcels differ dramatically in constraints. A given "Parcel A"
that is flat, is a corn field, has no slope -floodplain -soils -hazard -wetlands issues differs
dramatically from a given "Parcel B" that that might have all of the above. The
developer might propose a "cookie cutter" approach to "Parcel A" that carves it up into
simple rectangular two acre lots. After factoring in roads and road easements, dedicating
ROW, etc. that developer might have a Sketch Plan approved that averaged 2.5 acres of
parcel land for allowable 2 acre lot size. The developer of "Parcel B" with a variety of
constraints, after being very creative with lots extending into otherwise unbuildable areas
of flood plain and slopes but showing minimal building envelopes on each lot, might end
up with an average of five acres of parcel for each 2 acre buildable lot.
Given these differences between parcels, detailed information on parcel constraints will
be necessary o - - maximum numer of lots alloweuner curren�—
regulations, and this can only currentl be accom.lished at Prelimina Plan ' iven
su.mitta requirements as they now exist.
3
• •
In our current review process, a lot configuration is reviewed at Sketch Plan, and then
moves on to Preliminary Plan when deemed technically compliant. It is only then, and at
that point, that the developer has an indication of how many lots can reasonably be
carved out of the parcel — at the two acre minimum requirements currently existing in
these zoning designations.
What would be `allowable' under current regulatory constraints represents a "Yeild."
Incentives for clustering can only start there, once the yield is determined. This allows
the developer to show that "X" number of lots would be allowed otherwise, and that a
fixed percentage of the parcel is under constraints and is `undevelopable land.' under the
developer's own definition and after extending lots into those lands as allowed, with staff
concurrence. After determin.. ' • , : - _ • - .. a sec., ea access issues.,�tc.
a Yield Analysis will be provided to the applicant.
The applicant may submit a Clustering Option at Preliminary Plan, understanding that the
number of lots, just as in a standard application, will be subject to staff review. The
Clustering Option must be submitted in addition to a regular two acre minimum lot
configuration, to allow for a Yield Analysis to be undertaken by staff. The Yield
Analysis determines both the number of otherwise allowable lots and the extent of the
parcel which is otherwise undevelopable and can not be counted as preserved open space.
At the applicant's discretion and as an option, the level of detail necessary to derive a .
Yield Plan may be submitted earlier in the process, at Sketch Plan for example.
A new burden for a developer proposing a Clustering Option is in showing land that is
preserved for "Greenbelt" or "Common Open Space." The "Greenbelt" definition is
added to the Subdivision Regulations from the Zoning Resolution in this proposal, as
"Common Open Space" is more restrictive as a definition. Ownership and management
of that land will need to be defined, and a list of requirements met for HOA or other
management techniques. Onl "Otherwise Developable Land" ' counted for incentive
purposes, as "Undevelopable Land" has been define • in the "Yield Analysis."
A developer may make a proposal for Clustering, for lots down to one acre in size, under
these provisions, with no accommodations for Common Open space, Greenbelt or other
provisions providing the `Remainder Lot(s)" that result in developable and otherwise
undevelopable lands meets current subdivision criteria for no future subdivision or
development.
As clarification to this Section, it is the intent of this regulation to encourage without
being proscriptive, the preservation of agricultural and historic use, historic structures and
the preservation of unique features such as rock formations, viewsheds, wildlife habitat
and public access trails that serve both internal needs and connectivity to surrounding
lands, features and destinations. As such, an historic farmstead (with primary residence
and related outbuildings and structures) may be included as common open space or
greenbelt where use of that portion of such common open space or greenbelt is restricted
from further development and division and if not held in common, passes to common
4
• •
ownership at a time and conditions made certain. If such a circumstance includes a
habitable dwelling, it shall count as one lot in the calculation of allowable lots on the
parcel, but shall also be deemed as eligible in the calculation of common open space or
greenbelt.
As an incentive for Clustering, where the developer defines a remainder of otherwise
developable land to be held in common as Greenbelt or Common Open Space, with
defined ownership and management, the developer shall receive bonus lot allocations as
follows, subject to existing land and size constraints that allow for these additional
incentive lots under normal circumstances at a one acre lot size or greater:
1. For preserving otherwise developable lands, as determined in the Clustering Option as
defined by Garfield County, placed in a Common Open Space or Greenbelt designation
amounting to Twenty Five percent (25%) or more of the otherwise developable tract or
parcel of land being subdivided, development applicants shall be entitled to one
additional developable lot, or one additional developable lot for every 16 or more
otherwise developable lots, whichever is greater, or, if the next threshold is met:
2. For preserving otherwise developable lands, as determined in the Clustering Option as
defined by Garfield County, placed in a Common Open Space or Greenbelt designation
amounting to forty percent (40%) or more of the otherwise developable tract or parcel of
land being subdivided, development applicants shall be entitled to one additional
developable lot, or one additional developable lot for every 12 or more otherwise
developable lots, whichever is greater.
Constraints and analysis as required in the existing Zoning resolution of 1978,
specifically Sections 5.04.01 and 5.04.03, and Sections 2:20.30 and 9:12 shall be
maintained as now written, for lots under two acres in size.
Determinations of lot allowances shall only result in an additional lot when fractions
exceed 50% of a lot. This results in potential density bonuses of 6.52% and 8.53%
respectively, for bonuses over one lot. Staff feel that at this level, the character of the
underlying zoning is not significantly altered, especially given the open space
preservation achieved, nor are additional impacts to the supporting infrastructure
significant.
IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The following proposed Text Amendments to the Zoning Resolution of 1978 and
Amendments to the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County, Colorado of 1984
would implement this Proposal:
New Definitions (to be added to both Zoning Resolution and Subdivision Regulations):
5
• •
"CLUSTER. The grouping of elements together in close proximity to one another; and,
in this context applies to dwelling units, wells, septic systems and other aspects of the
elements of a subdivision."
"CLUSTER OPTION. A development option that may be undertaken by an applicant in
areas zoned A/I, A/R/RD, and R/L (Valley Floor) allowing for minimum lot size to be
reduced to one acre provided that the number of allowable lots, and consideration of
additional incentive lots, is based on a density configuration derived from the maximum
number of lots allowable under a two acre minimum lot size as exists in current zoning."
"OTHERWISE DEVELOPABLE LAND. In this context, land remaining in 2 acre sized
legal lot configurations after a yield determination based on a Yield Plan, and in addition
all land which would be allowed for internal roads. Specifically excluded are all lands
with slopes in excess of 40%, defined hazard areas deemed undevelopable, flood plain,
and riparian areas not included in otherwise allowable 2 acre lot configurations.
"INCENTIVE LOTS. Additional lots allowed an applicant as a bonus for the
preservation of Common Open Space or Greenbelt in a Cluster Option Proposal, as
defined by formula herein.
"YIELD. In this context, the number of lots allowable under current zoning and lot size
requirements after all required amenities, consideration of easements, set -backs, other
requirements, and constraints defined by regulation have been met."
"YIELD PLAN. An approved Yield Plan as applied to the Cluster Option showing the
number of otherwise allowable lots when applying a two acre minimum lot size and
showing thereby the extent of otherwise developable land."
In addition, the Definition of Greenbelt, currently contained in the Zoning Resolution,
would be added to the Subdivision Regulations, adding to the present definition of
`Common Open Space.'
"GREENBELT: Land retained in an open or unimproved condition, except for
agriculture, for the placement of landscape materials, including trees, shrubs and grasses
and structures limited to foot paths, bridges, irrigation structures, erosion protection
devices and underground utilities, or improved for park use as defined herein; ownership
of such land may be private with an easement or reservation for greenbelt use by deed
restriction, or it may be dedicated to the public. Designation of greenbelt does not imply
provision for access by the public."
Additional Text Amendments to the Zoning Resolution of 1978 would include:
Inserting the following language:
3.01.04 "except as otherwise approved in a Cluster Option"
6
• .
3.02.04 "except as otherwise approved in a Cluster Option"
3.10.04 "except as otherwise approved in a Cluster Option'
3.14.04 "except as otherwise approved in a Cluster Option"
The Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County, Colorado of 1984 would be amended to
include the following new Sections:
A new section 4.11 will be created to read:
"At this point in the application process the applicant may decide to chose a "Cluster
Option" for development of a parcel in A/I, A/R/RD or R/L (Valley Floor) Zone
Districts. Upon submission of a Clustering option, a `Yield Plan' which defines the
number of parcels which would otherwise be allowed with a two acre minimum lot size,
and the balance or remainder of the parcel which may be undevelopable, will be based on
the applicants configuration of lots as would otherwise be allowed under two -acre
minimum lot size regulations.
If choosing to undertake the Cluster Option, the applicant shall submit a second Cluster
Option Plan showing lot configurations based on a minimum lot size of one acre, with
lots clustered so as to preserve greenbelt and common open space areas on otherwise
developable land. This second Cluster Option Plan will be subject to the same review
criteria, and must contain the same elements, with the following additions:
A. A calculation of total developable land, based on land area contained in legal
and allowable lots as defined, in a proposed Yield analysis.
B. A Calculation of developable land reserved for greenbelt or common open
space, as a percentage of total developable land.
The number of lots allowed in the Cluster Option shall be the same as would be allowed
in the Yield Plan, with a minimum size of one acre, with additional lots allowed as
follows:
1. For preserving otherwise developable lands, as determined in the Clustering Option as
defined by Garfield County, placed in a Common Open Space or Greenbelt designation
amounting to Twenty Five percent (25%) or more of the otherwise developable tract or
parcel of land being subdivided, development applicants shall be entitled to one
additional developable lot, or one additional developable lot for every 16 or more
otherwise developable lots, whichever is greater, or, if the next threshold is met:
2. For preserving otherwise developable lands, as determined in the Clustering Option as
defined by Garfield County, placed in a Common Open Space or Greenbelt designation
amounting to forty percent (40%) or more of the otherwise developable tract or parcel of
land being subdivided, development applicants shall be entitled to one additional
7
• •
developable lot, or one additional developable lot for every 12 or more otherwise
developable lots, whichever is greater.
Constraints and analysis as required in the existing Zoning resolution of 1978,
specifically Sections 5.04.01 and 5.04.03, and Sections 2:20.30 and 9:12 shall be criteria
applied to lot configurations of less than two acres but at least one acre in size, and those
criteria shall be shown and addressed in the Clustering Option. Utilities, and specifically
ISDS leach fields, are allowed to be placed in common open space or greenbelt areas, and
allowed to be shared by multiple dwelling units where total capacity can be shown to be
under 2000 GPD, and a specific common maintenance agreement is specified in the
proposal.
The Clustering Option Sketch Plan shall include a narrative description directly relating
to Common Open Space or Greenbelt, including the following:
A. A description of the land to be included in common open space or greenbelt.
B. Ownership and proposed management of the common open space or greenbelt.
C. A weed control and erosion management strategy for the common open space or
greenbelt.
D. Intended uses allowed in the common open space or greenbelt, and amenities and
structures to be placed there, if any.
Staff will review both the conventional and the Cluster Option proposals, determine the
yield of lots allowable from the conventional plan, and determine whether the applicant's
definition of otherwise developable land is appropriate in their findings in their report and
recommendations to the Planning Commission.
After submittal of the Clustering Option Plan, the applicant resumes the process as
defined in this Section 4.0 and all processes and procedures defined herein thereafter
proceed as otherwise defined. Staff may request additional information and clarification
based on the clustering configuration and assumptions. Nothing in this Section prevents
or precludes an applicant presenting a Yield Plan earlier in the application process, for
instance at Sketch Plan, should the applicant desire to provide detailed site information
sufficient for lot configuration analysis at that point.
4.50 M add "and, or Greenbelt space"
4.60 A add "greenbelt"
5.24 B add "greenbelt"
8
• •
V. FINDINGS
1. The Garfield County Planning Commission is empowered in both the Zoning
Resolution of 1978 and the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County of 1984 to
propose Amendments to the text of both documents, and
2. Current conditions have given evidence and cause to the satisfaction of the Garfield
County Planning Commission to consider and recommend to the Board of County
Commissioners the Amendments as above proposed, and
3. The proposed Amendments are the result of extensive discussion and review, and a
solicitation of comments from the general public and concerned parties, all of which were
considered in deliberations leading to the proposed Amendments, approved at a regularly
scheduled meeting of the Garfield County Planning Commission held on January 8, 2003,
and
4. The Board of County Commissioners is empowered to approve amendments to the
text of the Zoning Resolution of 1978 and the Subdivision Regulations of 1984, and
5. Further extensive discussion and review was undertaken, and solicitation of comments
from the general public and concerned parties was undertaken prior to this Public
Hearing, and
6. The proposed Amendments are in the best interests of the public health, safety and
welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
VI. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the Clustering Initiative Proposal as forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners by the Planning Commission.
9