Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.0 Memo to BOCC 05.29.1997MEMORANDUM TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: MARK BEAN DATE: 5/29/97 RE: RANCH CREEK PUD MODIFICATIONS Subsequent to the last meeting with the Ranch Creek PUD developers, the developers have negotiated a draft agreement with the Ranch at Roaring Fork regarding the water and sewer service, open space and access to Ranch roads. These issues have resulted in a reduction of the density of the proposed development. Additionally, an agreement with the owners of the Relay Station regarding an agreement to use a portion of the property for parking. The following comments are offered regarding the modifications submitted in the attached documents: Ranch at Roaring Fork HOA: One of the major issues left up in the air at the hearing in January was the lack of agreement with the HOA regarding a number of issues. Included in the attached documents is a draft agreement between the applicants and the HOA that settles the water/sewer service issue and gives all of the Ranch Creek homeowners equal rights to the use of the Ranch Common Area. The Ranch HOA attorney has indicated that this document cannot be signed until there is approval by a majority of the present homeowners. He has indicated that the vote of the homeowners will not be voting until sometime later this summer. If this agreement is not ratified by the HOA, then the approval of the PUD would be inappropriate. Additionally, a preliminary plan application cannot be submitted until the HOA has agreed to provide the service. Any approval of the proposed PUD has to be conditioned upon the R at RF HOA ratifyin the attached agreement, as proposed by staff in the original staff report. (Attached pgs. /" 30 Density: The modified PUD plan reduces the number of residential lots from 25 units to 22 units. There are still two existing dwellings included in the total lot count, which will result in 20 additional dwellings as a result of the modification. This reduces the gross density of the PUD to 3.94 du/ac. from 4.47 dulac.. As a result, the overall density is within the maximum of 4 dulac. allowed for a PUD. Open Space: The proposed agreement with the R at RF Homeowner's Association recognizes the applicants right to use the Common Area of the Ranch in the same manner as the present homeowners. If the HOA does agree to sign the proposed document, which will give the new PUD property owners a claim and obligation for the ownership and maintenance of the Ranch common area. As stated in the previous staff report, staff can accept the use of common area of the Ranch to meet the 25% minimum open space requirement of the PUD regulations, if the new homeowners have the same claim to the area as the existing Ranch homeowners. Without the signed agreement, this claim has no validity. Road Width: The revised design has reduced the number of lots accessing the internal road to ten (10). This would generate 100 vehicle trips per day, requiring a 40 ft. ROW for a Semi- Primitive road. The revised design includes a 40 ft. ROW, which would be consistent with the subdivision regulation requirements. It appears that the revised lot design was laid out to try and avoid the issue of a larger ROW that would be required by the addition of a single lot, under a standard subdivision review The PUD process does allow the Board to reduce the standards for streets and other infrastructure in recognition of the "uniqueness of each proposal for a PUD....". The original proposal had a 30 ft. ROW serving 14 lots. Staff's concerns about the original design were related to the narrow width of the original ROW and lack of width for fire safety and snow removal purposes. The 40 ft. ROW would afford more room for snow removal, if the same conditions requiring that no on street parking will be allowed. The Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District has agreed that the revised site plan is generally adequate for fire apparatus to access the site provided the final design has adequate turning radius for fire apparatus. (See letter pg. 3 ) Staff would support the further revision of the PUD plan to have lots 3,4,7,8 and J6 access the 40 ft. ROW, rather than have the number of driveways accessing Stagecoach Lane and the Highway frontage road. If this is not an acceptable alternative, the access to lots 3 and 4, 8 and 10 should be combined to a common access easement along the common property boundary to minimize the number of driveways accessing Ranch roads Off -Street Parking: The original application indicated that there would be four (4) off- street parking spaces, but it is not reflected in the proposed zone district text. This needs to be specified in the PUD zone district text. Additionally, the restriction of no on -street parking needs to be carried forward to this proposal. Zone District Text: The front yard setback for "Local Streets and Collectors" does not make sense. If a house is 20' from the property line, it cannot be 10' from the paved surface or 0' from the edge of the ROW. The edge of the ROW is the property line. This needs to be rewritten and staff suggests that it be the 20' from the property line/ROW line. In summary, the signing of the agreement with the Ranch at Roaring Fork HOA is critical to the approval of the proposed PUD. Without that document, it is not possible to reach an agreement on the previous issues. Staff suggests that all original conditions of approval are still valid, but modified to read as follows : 1. That all representations of the applicant either in the application or during the public hearing before the Board of 'County Commissioners shall be considered conditions of approval, unless modified by the Board. 2. Prior to the submittal of a Preliminary Plan application, the applicants will provide a signed agreement with the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association to provide water and sewer service, access to the Ranch open space for owners in the PUD and agreement to include the roads in the PUD in the Ranch's road maintenance and repair system. If no agreement can be reached, a court order requiring the same provisions may be substituted. 3. That the following language be modified to read as follows or added to the proposed zone district text: SECTION I. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Effect of Garfield County Zoning Resolution (adopted January 2, 1979). The provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution and the successors thereof, as now in effect and as hereafter amended, are by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, to the extent not divergent from the provisions of the Ranch Creek Planned Unit Development Zone Regulations. B. Conflict. The provisions of the Zoning Regulations shall prevail and govern the development of Ranch Creek PUD provided, however, where the provisions of the Ranch Creek PUD Zone Regulations do not clearly address a specific subject, the ordinances, resolutions or regulations of Garfield County shall prevail. Definitions established herein shall take precedence over definitions established by the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County, adopted April 23, 1984, whenever these regulations are applicable to the Ranch Creek PUD. By way of example, the floodplain regulations set forth at Section 6:00 of the Garfield County Zoning Regulations are fully applicable to this proposed PUD. C. "No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed; each dwelling unit will be allowed one(1) new wood -burning stove as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-407, et. seq. and the regulations promulgated thereunder; and there will be no restriction on the number of natural gas burning fireplaces or appliances included in the protective covenants." 1.06 Minimum Setback: 1. Front Yard a. Ranch Streets: twenty-five (25') from the property line b. Interior Streets: 20 ' from the property line 4. That a Preliminary Plan and Final Plat be submitted within one (1) year from the date of the approval of the PUD and that the PUD include the following elements: a. The preliminary plan include two (2) additional off-street parking spaces in addition to the two (2) covered off-street parking spaces on each lot. b. That a park design including specific landscaping plans and a parking area with at least 10 parking spaces be submitted as a part of the Preliminary Plan. Additionally, that a pedestrian easement be shown from the parking area to the internal road of the subdivision along the lot line common to Lot 8 and the adjacent commercial property. c. The proposed road design include provisions for no parking signs and the covenants include a method by which property owners can be fined for parking on street. d. The road design incorporate any proposed changes made by the Carbondale Fire District and there be letter included with the Preliminary Plan identifying there agreement with the proposed road design. 05/29/97 09:31 CARBONDALE FIRE DISTRICT 9457785 ND.157 D02 Carbondale at Rural Flre ProteotIcra Dlstrlot 300 Meadowood Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 (970) 963-2491 Pax; (970) 963-0569 May 29, 1997 Mark Bean Garfield County Planner 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Ranch Creek - Preliminary F.U.D. Mark: .1 recently met with Mr. David Brown to review a revised road and lot layout for the proposed Ranch Creek P.U.D. The site plan reviewed, marked "Revised May 12, 1997", is generally adequate for providing access for fire apparatus. The final design will need to provide for an adequate turning radius for fire apparatus. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerel Bill Gavette Fire Marshal BOCC 1/20/97 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan and zone district text for the Ranch Creek PUD APPLICANT: Jane J. Jenkins, Stagecoach Associates, Ltd. PLANNERS: Stryker/Brown Architects ENGINEERS: McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd. CTL/Thompson, Inc. LOCATION: A parcel of land located in Lot 2 of Section 36, T7S, R88W; more practically described as a parcel of land located approximately one (1) mile northeast of Carbondale off of State Hwy 82. SITE DATA: 5.586 acres WATER: Ranch at Roaring Fork water system SEWER: Ranch at Roaring Fork sewage disposal system ACCESS: State Hwy 82 ZONING: Planned Development (P/D) I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed PUD is located in an area designated as an Existing Subdivision on the Proposed Land Use Districts, Carbondale Area map of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 1 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The proposed PUD is located along the Roaring Fork river valley floor, adjacent to State Hwy 82 and within the Ranch at Roaring Fork development. The Ranch at Roaring Fork contains a large open space/common area that includes river bottom that has various riparian areas with large cottonwood and evergreen trees. The site presently contains two original ranch houses and surrounds the Relay Station restaurant. B. Development Proposal: The applicant is proposing to develop 25 single family detached home lots and a single lot for a park/parking. (See application enclosed) Two of the 25 lots will will have the previously noted existing dwellins. The proposed lots range in size 5334.5 sq. ft. to 21354.2 sq. ft. in size and average 9260.5 sq. ft. in size. All of the dwellings are proposed to be served by the Ranch at Roaring Fork water and sewer systems. Access will be provided by the main entrance to the Ranch at Roaring Fork onto a 30 ft. wide access easement that goes from Stagecoach Lane to Stagecoach Drive on the west side of the restaurant. Fourteen of the proposed lots will be accessed via the previously noted easement, the remainder of the lots will access directly onto road owned and maintained by the Ranch of Roaring Fork. C. History: In 1972 the Ranch at Roaring Fork was approved as an Accommodations/Resort Planned Development District (P/D). Included within the P/D was a "Town Center" and "Parcel DT Units" area called Phase II. In 1973, a Preliminary Plan for Phase Ii was reviewed and approved by the County. The Town Center area contained 4.73 acres and the "D" Units area contained 2.60 acres. The Town Center plat had areas designated by dashed lines for retail shops, restaurant and coffee shop. The "D" units area on the same plat, showed the outline based on dashed lines for a 40 "condo/hotel" unit complex. The original application also included calculations for the water and sewer systems that is the basis for determining the actual uses allowed within the "commercial" portion of the project. In 1980, the County conditionally approved a modification to the Parcel 1 ( "D" Units), to reduce the density from 40 condo/hotel units to 25 condominium units. The conditions of approval were not met and the Board rescinded the approval given to the then owners of the property. In 1983, Parcel 2 (commercial parcel) was reduced in size to 3.86 acres as a result of State and County right-of-way acquisitions. In 1986, the same parcel was split into two parcels of 0.7542 acres and 2.98 acres. This was done to allow for the sale of the then Stagecoach (Relay Station) restaurant as a separate piece from the remainder of the property. 2 III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. ZONING: Planned/Development: Garfield County adopted zoning for "Garfield County Zoned Area Number 1" in 1970, for an area that included all land east of South Canyon creek and the Roaring Fork valley and all of its tributary drainage. The Ranch at Roaring Fork was approved as an Accommodation/Resort Planned Development under the provisions of this zoning resolution. The records of the rezoning process provide very little guidance as to what was and was not approved as a part of the P/D. The Town Center plat is only defined by outlines on the plat of the proposed buildings for a small commercial area to be designed in a western town theme and a hotel. Further definition is provided when you read the engineers projections for the water and sewer demands. There is no definition of "condo/hotel" units or the extent of the type of commercial shops that would be developed as a part of the Town Center, except for the engineering of the water and sewer systems. The design of the infrastructure was based on a certain number of condo/hotel units, shops and the specific size of the restaurant and coffee shop. The County has always taken the position that the uses allowed on the areas in question are constrained by the building envelopes shown on the plat and the designations of the "shops and service facilities" and "hotel". Any change to the P/D would require either a rezoning to PUD or standard rezoning to a zone district that exists in the current zoning resolution. Planned Unit Development: A Planned Unit Development (PUD) is treated as a zone district amendment in Sections 4 and 10 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. A PUD is required to be approved, denied or conditionally approved within 120 days of submittal, following a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Within 60 days of submittal, yet within the previously noted 120 day review period, the Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The following is a review of the Ranch Creek PUD proposal per the requirements contained in 4.00 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution: 4.02 PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES OF DEVELOPMENT: PUD's may be approved by the County Commissioners for the following purposes and to achieve the following objectives of development: 1. TO PROVIDE FOR NECESSARY COMMERCIAL, RECREATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES CONVENIENTLY LOCATED TO HOUSING: The applicant proposes no commercial or educational facilities on site . Recreational amenities are conveniently located near the housing, if the applicant can reach an agreement with the Ranch at Roaring Fork homeowners association for the use of the common area owned by the Ranch. 3 Commercial shopping needs are not provided on-site, with the only access to these services being State Hwy 82 and Catherine's Store being the nearest commercial use area. 2. TO PROVIDE FOR WELL -LOCATED, CLEAN, SAFE AND PLEASANT INDUSTRIAL SITES INVOLVING A MINIMUM OF STRAIN ON TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES: The proposed project has no industrial sites. 3. TO INSURE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING LAWS WHICH DIRECT THE UNIFORM TREATMENT OF DWELLING TYPE, BULK, DENSITY AND OPEN SPACE WITHIN EACH ZONING DISTRICT WILL NOT BE APPLIED TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF LAND BY OTHER THAN LOT -BY -LOT DEVELOPMENT IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD DISTORT THE OBJECTIVES OF THE ZONING LAWS: The applicant has proposed a PUD zone district text that is different from the present uses allowed in the Ranch at Roaring Fork P/D. It has always been difficult for staff to advise people looking at these properties regarding the uses allowed, since the original zoning was so poorly defined. To that end, the proposed PUD would better define the uses allowed. The use of the property for residential purposes appears to be more consistent with the desires of the other property owners presently owning property in the Ranch. The proposed density is not similar to any zone districts in the County Zoning resolution. The Homeowners Association has expressed concerns with some portions of the project in terms of density, setbacks and internal road access. (See Neighbors Comments) It should be noted that the comments made, were based on a prior plan that had a higher residential density. 4. TO ENCOURAGE INNOVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND RENEWAL SO THAT THE GROWING DEMANDS OF THE POPULATION MAY BE MET BY GREATER VARIETY IN TYPE, DESIGN AND LAYOUT OF BUILDINGS AND BE THE CONSERVATION AND MORE EFFICIENT USE OF OPEN SPACE ANCILLARY TO SAID BUILDINGS: The proposed PUD is a basic curvilinear design of laying out lots. There is 11814.2 sq. f11 of common open space for a park/parking included within this proposal and a "fisherman's easement" included with the lots along Blue Creek. The design maximizes the development density for single family detached lots, which should reduce the cost of a lot. 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 INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF THOSE WHO NEED HOMES: The proposed PUD does maximize density in the area, thus reducing the amount of infrastructure necessary to meet the needs of the development. The proposed maximizing ming of the density would in theory allow for the reduction of the costs to consumers. 6. TO LESSEN THE BURDEN OF TRAFFIC ON STREETS AND HIGHWAYS: The proposed development will increase traffic on State Highway 82 and the internal road system within the Ranch at Roaring Fork. As noted in the application, the proposed lots are all within walking distance of the bus stops located on the highway. There is no guarantee that the new owners will not drive vehicles. 7. TO CONSERVE THE VALUE OF THE LAND: Property values internal to the project are not defined and the impact of the new units on existing property values is not really definable. 8. TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE WHICH CAN RELATE THE TYPE, DESIGN AND LAYOUT OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE PARTICULAR SITE, THEREBY ENCOURAGING PRESERVATION OF THE SITES NATURAL CHARACTERISTICS: The application does propose a fisherman's easement along the southern portion of the property, but there is no other natural characteristics of the property that need to be preserved. 9. TO ENCOURAGE INTEGRATED PLANNING IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE ABOVE PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES OF DEVELOPMENT: The proposed application is for a planned project, that attempts to achieve the previously noted purposes and objectives. 4.03 This application is being made for lands presently zoned P/D, which is allowed by the County Zoning Resolution. 4.04 CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN: No PUD shall be approved unless it is found by the County Commissioners to be in general conformity with the County's general plan. The following is a discussion of the individual goals HOUSING Goal: TO ENSURE THE AVAILABILITY OF HOUSING INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE COUNTY WHERE IN SHORT SUPPLY, SUBJECT TO REGULATIONS, WHICH ENSURE SAFETY, APPROPRIAIE SI "1'h DESIGN, COMPATIBILITY, AND PROTECTION OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. The proposed PUD has a density that maximizes the potential of the land, assuming that the infrastructure is capable handling the development. The higher density theoretically converts to a lower cost per dwelling unit, but there are no price controls imposed by the County to ensure that the development will be priced at a level consistent with affordable housing, rather than the market price. The prevailing market price in the Roaring Fork valley is not affordable to the majority of the residents in the County. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE Goal: GARFIELD COUNTY SHOULD PROVIDE ADEQUATE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNI LIES FOR COUNTY RESIDENTS, ENSURE ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS CONSISTENT WITH BLM/USFS POLICIES, AND PRESERVE EXISTING RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND IMPORTANT VISUAL CORRIDORS. The open space provided as a part of this development is located in an area adjacent to the entrance of the Ranch at Roaring Fork. It is not well defined as to how much will be park and how much of it will be for parking. Additionally, the owners of the Relay Station restaurant are claiming the right to park up to 50 cars on this area. (See letter pgs. /e ? ) There is a proposed fisherman's easement along Blue Creek that provides some continuity with the common area owned by the Ranch at Roaring Fork HOA. The applicants are relying on the existing common area and golf course owned by the Ranch at Roaring Fork HOA as an amenity for the residents within the proposed developemt. If the present owners of the proposed PUD are all members of the HOA and have a legal right to use the common area, there would be adequate recreational opportunities for the future residents of this development if that right can be transferred. The comments from the Ranch at RF/HOA indicate that they do not believe that all of the property included in the application are members of the HOA and are not eligible to use the common area. This puts the issue of right to use the common open area by all of the residents in question. Until this issue is resolved, there is a question as to whether or not the proposed PUD meets the minimum common open space required by the PUD regulations, particullarly with the challenge of the adjoining property owner claiming a right to use a portion of the proposed internal open space as parking area for customers of the restaurant. TRANSPORTATION Goal: ENSURE THAT THE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IS SAFE, FUNCTIONAL, APPROPRIATELY DESIGNED TO HANDLE EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAFFIC LEVELS, AND INCLUDES OPTIONS FOR THE USE OF MODES OTHER THAN THE SINGLE - OCCUPANT AUTOMOBILE. The Ranch at Roaring Fork has a public transit stop located on Highway 82, just outside of the development. and within walking distance of the proposed development. The internal road system appears to have some limitations that could present problems for internal circulation, particularly in the winter due the narrow width and limited off-street parking available. WATER AND SEWER SERVICES Goal: TO ENSURE THAT PROVISION OF LEGAL, ADEQUATE,, DEPENDABLE, COST EFFECTIVE AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND SEWER AND WATER SERVICES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT. The project proposes to utilize the Ranch at Roaring Fork water and sewer facilities. In the application, their engineer has stated that the systems at the ranch can accomodate 28 dwellings, which is less than the proposed units. The R at RF/HOA has noted that they may not have the capacity to accommodate the development as presently proposed. Without the water and sewer facilities, the proposed project cannot go forward and is not going to be consistent with Comprehensive Plan. COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL USES Goal: GARFIELD COUNTY WILL ENCOURAGE THE RETENTION AND EXPANSION OF CONVENIENT, VIABLE, AND COMPATIBLE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAPABLE OF PROVIDING A WIDE VARIETY OF GOODS AND SERVICES TO SERVE THE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY. The application relies on the Comprehensive Plan policies that discourage strip development. While this proposal would eliminate a commercial area, it does not necessary fall in the category of strip development since the access to the entire project is limited to a single access, that is already a controlled access. In one sense, having some commercial on the property could reduce the need for additional traffic into the area if the services provided were consistent with the needs of the residents in the Ranch at Roaring Fork. 4.05 RELATIONSHIP TO ZONING AND SUBDIVISION 4.05.01 The Ranch Creek PUD proposes zone districts within the PUD as required by the regulations, but language needs to be included that recognizes that the Garfield County Zoning Resolution will be the controlling document. Language needs to be added to the PUD Zone District text stating the following: SECTION I. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Effect of Garfield County Zoning Resolution (adopted January 2. 1979). The provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution and the successors thereof, as now in effect and as hereafter amended, are by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, to the extent not divergent from the provisions of the Ranch Creek Planned Unit Development Zone Regulations. B. Conflict. The provisions of the Zoning Regulations shall prevail and govern the development of Ranch Creek PUD provided, however, where the provisions of the Ranch Creek PUD Zone Regulations do not clearly address a specific subject, the ordinances, resolutions or regulations of Garfield County shall prevail. Definitions established herein shall take precedence over definitions established by the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County, adopted April 23, 1984, whenever these regulations are applicable to the Ranch Creek PUD. By way of example, the floodplain regulations set forth at Section 6:00 of the Garfield County Zoning Regulations are fully applicable to this proposed PUD. 4.05.02 The proposed PUD appears to contain variances to the County Zoning and Subdivision Regulation standards. The subdivision road standards contained in Section 9:35- 9:37 of the County Subdivision standards require certain minimum right-of-way and road design standards. The proposed road is an easement that is 30' wide, with a 20' wide driving surface with no curbs and gutters. This easement would provide access to 14 lots surrounding the restaurant. The present road standards would require a Rural Access road (50' row/22'driving surface) for 10 to 20 dwelling units. There are no requirements for curb and gutter. The justification and basis for the reduced right -out -way and driving surface is based on a tum of the century "neighborhood". It is represented in the first application that the Road & Bridge supervisor has reviewed the plan and found it to be adequate. In a conversation with the Road & Bridge Supervisor, he stated that he did not approve the design. He noted that the Department will not be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the roads since they will be privately maintained. The Fire District has expressed concerns about the road widths, contrary to what is represented in the application. The roadway is only described as be a hard surfaced road, with no definition of shoulders or ditches. Additionally, it appears that there may be a snow removal problem, given the narrow widths of the right-of-way. If the proposed roadway design is approved, there should be a requirement that there be no on street parking, particullarly in the winter. There are other proposed changes to the zoning that appear to be at variance to both the existing zoning and the 1970 zoning that is still used as basis for interpreting the uses allowed within the proposed development. There is no discussion of the proposed variances and the reason or necessity for the variances, other than the need to provide a higher density, thus reducing the cost. The following are the most apparent variances from the present zoning resolution: 1) All lot lines go to the middle of the easement, thus there is no front property line from which setbacks can be measured. The proposed Residential/Single Family/Planned Unit Developemt proposes a 20' front yard setback from the property line (centerline of the easement) and 0' from the easement and 10' of the driving surface for the internal road. Staff has taken the position in a recent regular subdiviion that the easement cannot be considered a part of the right-of- way for accessing a lot. If this variance is to be approved, then the previous comments regarding the need for strict no parking requirements on the road or easement need to be included in the covenants and through signage and enforcement by the homeowners. 2) The application requests a minimum lot size of 4500 sq. ft.. and 50% maximum lot coverage. Staff does not have as much concern about these variances given the intent to minimize the land cost in the overall cost of the proposed lots. 4.06 INTERNAL COMPAI1BILITY OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS: The proposed PUD does not have internal elements of the Plan that appear to be incompatible in terms of land uses, unless the applicant is required to provide off-street parking for the adjacent restaurant. This could create a conflict for the property owners within the PUD in terms of their use of the common area. 4.07 STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS 4.07.01 The Board of County Commissioners must be able to make a finding that the proposed rezoning meets the standards and requirements set forth in the PUD regulations. The proposed density exceeds the maximum allowed for a development not having access to public water and sewer facilities There will be further discussion of this issue in the review of Section 4.07.06. 4.07.02 The applicant has proposed four (4) off-street parking spaces for each dwelling unit. The County Zoning Resolution requires at least two (2) spaces for each dwelling unit. The minimum size of a parking space is 200 sq. ft. in the County regulation, there is no definition of the size in the application. 4.07.03 The PUD shall meet the following site plan criteria unless the applicant can demonstrate that one (1) or more of them is not applicable or that a practical solution has been otherwise achieved: 10 (1) The PUD shall have an appropriate relationship to the surrounding area, with unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area being minimized. The proposed residential use is consistent with the existing residential neighborhoods in the rest of the development, but the neighbors have expressed some concerns about the proposed density and the ability of the existing water and sewer systems having the legal/physical capability of meeting the developments needs. Additionally, unless the entire proposed development can become members of the homeowners association and have legal access to the common area, there are potential conflicts with the use of the common area. (2) The PUD shall provide an adequate internal street circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, safety, separation from living areas, convenience and access. Private internal streets may be permitted, provided that adequate access for police and fire protection is maintained. Bicycle traffic shall be provided for when the site is used for residential purposes. (3) The proposed road system is the very minimum necessary to meet the circulation needs of the project, if we assume that there will be no on street parking or need to move snow off of the road the winter. Staff questions whether the internal lots will be able to provide the propsoed off-street parking given the lack of separation between the driving surface and the proposed structures. The applicant needs to address these concerns. The R at RF/HOA has noted that portions of the develop access directly onto roads owned and maintained by the HOA and they are concerned about the lack of agreement between the developer and HOA on this issue. The PUD shall provide parking areas adequate in terms of location, area, circulation, safety, convenience, separation and screening. The proposed parking for the projected for the proposal is based on two spaces for each single family dwelling and an additional two off-street spaces on each lot. This issue was addressed previously. Off-street parking for guests was 11 originally proposed in the common open space area, but that may not be as readily available given the adjacent resturant owners claims to parking area. As noted previously, the right- of-way proposed will not meet any on -street parking needs given the 30' right-of-way and no snow removal area. (4) The PUD shall provide Common Open Space adequate in terms of location, area and type of the Common Open Space, and in terms of the uses permitted in the PUD. The PUD shall strive for optimum preservation of the natural features of the terrain. (5) Unless the applicants can get the entire project annexed into the homeowner's association, the only Common Open Space located in a convenient location for the development is the proposed pedestrian and fisherman's easements. It is then a question of whether or not this area meets the intent of the Common Open Space requirement for a PUD. There is less than the 25% required by the regualtions.. The PUD shall provide for variety in housing types and densities, other facilities and Common Open Space. The PUD provides for a single housing type, common area and the previously noted pedestrian and fisherman's easement. The applicants are claiming the right of the occupants to use the common area of the Ranch at Roaring Fork. This issue is discussed further on in this report. (6) The PUD shall provide adequate privacy between dwelling units. (7) The applicant states that there will be adequate privacy between the dwelling units within the development, without identifying the basis for the statement, except for the well insulated common walls in the duplexes. The PUD shall provide pedestrian ways adequate in terms of safety, separation, convenience, access to points of destination and attractiveness. The PUD proposes pedestrian ways to the common area of 12 4.07.04 the Ranch , and other pedestrian paths to other areas are proposed for the development. The maximum height of buildings is not being increased above the maximum permitted for like buildings in other zone districts. 4.07.05 The PUD zone district text format is consistent with the county Zoning Resolution format. The following r comment regarding the proposed PUD text is noted in addition to the previousl comments:: Under the "additional requirements" section in each zone district seems to make provisions for manufactured homes. As it is written and given that the county regulations allow a manufactured home in any zone district, someone applying for building permit for a manufactured home that meets the HUD standards would be permitted. 4.07.06 The proposed Ranch Creek project has an overall gross density of 4.47 dwelling units/acre. The PUD regulations allow the Board of consider requests for up to four (4) dwelling units/acre and may approve densities up to 15 dwellings/acre where there is public water and sewer systems available to serve the PUD. Additionally, the prior zoning classification had to allow densities in excess of 4 dwellings/acre. The water and sewer systems are owned by the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association, The Ranch HOA has taken the position that they do not have the capability to meet the demand for additional dwellings (See R at RF comments pgs. ) The application states that the current zoning for Parcel 1, "D" Units allows for a Condominium/Hotel of 58 +/- dwelling units, which is well in excess 10 d.u./acre. Staff has always taken the position that the Condo/Hotel unit was originally calculated to have 40 units, based on the engineering documentation submitted with the project in the 1970's. Regardless, the 40 units exceeds the 4 d.u./acre maximum allowed by the PUD regulations. The applicant takes the 13 position that the density approved on the condo/hotel parcel is transferable to the entire PUD, which contains property that was not originally zoned to allow for dwellings. Staff would agree that the existing zoning can be fouund to meet the intent of the underlying zoning requirement. 4.07.07 The PUD is more than two (2) acres in size. 4.07.08 The uses peiniitted in the PUD Zone Districts are permitted in other zone district contained in the County Zoning Resolution. 4.07.09 Twenty-five percent (25%) of the total area within the boundary of any PUD shall be devoted to Common Open Space; and not more than fifly percent (50%) of the Common Open Space is an area of water. Provided, however, that the County Commissioners may reduce such requirement if they fused that such decrease is warranted by the design of, and the amenities and features incorporated into, the Plan and that the needs of the occupants of the PUD for Common Open Space can be met in the proposed PUD. The applicant is claiming the right to use the common area associated with the Ranch at Roaring Fork. If the claim can be validated. staff has no problem supporting the position that the common area on the ranch more than meets the needs of the occupants of the proposed PUD. This claim is disputed by the Ranch HOA, in that they do not concede that all of the property included in the PUD has been annexed into the Ranch HOA and as a result has no claim to the common area. Then the applicant needs to be able t� demonstrate that there is adequate Common Open Space within the boundaries of the proposed PUD to meet the needs of the occupants. This may be accomplished by the designation of the pedestrian and fisherman's easement as common open space and additional changes noted previously to the zone district text to meet the minimum lot size needs that will result. B. Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association: The Chairman of the Legal Committee for the Board of Directors -Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association has submitted a memo noting a number of concerns based on a prior 14 proposal with a higher density. (See pgs. ) The concerns expressed are related to the density being proposed; the ability of the water and sewer system to serve the development; development standards at odds with the other portions of the development; lack of inclusion of a portion of the PUD within the HOA; no agreement with the HOA regarding common road maintenance. IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at the meeting. 2. That the application submitted met the requirements of Section 4.08.05 of the Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended. 3. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed application, subject to certain conditions of approval. 4. That the PUD is general conformity with the 1984 Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the Purposes and Objectives (Section 4.02) and Standards and Requirements (Section 4.07) of the PUD Regulations. IV. RECOMMENDATION On December 11, 1996, the Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL of the proposed PUD Plan and text amendment, with the following conditions of approval: 1. That all representations of the applicant either in the application or during the public hearing before the Board of 'County Commissioners shall be considered conditions of approval, unless modified by the Board. 2. Prior to the submittal of a Preliminary Plan application, the applicants will provide a signed agreement with the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association to provide water and sewer service, access to the Ranch open space for owners in the PUD and agreement to include the roads in the PUD in the Ranch's road maintenance and repair system. If no agreement can be reached, a court order requiring the same provisions may be substituted. 15 3. That the following language be added to the proposed zone district text: SECTION I. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Effect of Garfield County Zoning Resolution (adopted January 2, 1979). The provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution and the successors thereof, as now in effect and as hereafter amended, are by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, to the extent not divergent from the provisions of the Ranch Creek Planned Unit Development Zone Regulations. B. Conflict. The provisions of the Zoning Regulations shall prevail and govern the development of Ranch Creek PUD provided, however, where the provisions of the Ranch Creek PUD Zone Regulations do not clearly address a specific subject, the ordinances, resolutions or regulations of Garfield County shall prevail. Definitions established herein shall take precedence over definitions established by the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County, adopted April 23, 1984, whenever these regulations are applicable to the Ranch Creek PUD. By way of example, the floodplain regulations set forth at Section 6:00 of the Garfield County Zoning Regulations are fully applicable to this proposed PUD. C. "No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed; each dwelling unit will be allowed one(1) new wood -burning stove as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-407, et. seq. and the regulations promulgated thereunder; and there will be no restriction on the number of natural gas burning fireplaces or appliances included in the protective covenants." 4. That a Preliminary Plan and Final Plat be submitted within one (1) year from the date of the approval of the PUD and that the PUD include the following elements: a. The preliminary plan include two (2) addiitonal off-street parking spaces in addition to the two (2) covered off-street parking spaces on each lot. b. That a park design including specific landscaping plans and a parking area with at least 10 parking spaces be submitted as a part of the Preliminary Plan. Additioanally, that a pedestrian easement be shown from the parking area to the internal road of the subdivision along the lot line common to Lot 8 and the adjacent commmercial property. c. The proposed road design include provisions for no parking signs and the covenants include a method by which property owners can be fined for parking on street. 16 d. The road design incorporate any proposed changes made by the Carbondale Fire District and there be letter included with the Preliminary Plan identifying there agreement with the proposed road design. I: LAW OFFICES OF OATES, HUGHES, KNEZEVICH & GAR.DENSWA.R'I'G 1 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 61611 LEONARD M. OATES RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH TED D. GARDENSWARTZ DAVID B. KELLY RICH ORMAN OF COUNSEL: ROBERT W. HUGHES JOHN THOMAS KELLY Mark Bean Planning Director Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81623 January 9, 1997 Re: Land Use Application - Stagecoach Associates, Ltd. Dear Mr. Bean: TELEPHONE (970) 920-1700 FACSIMILE (9701920-1121 e-mail ohkgi rof.net This firm of attorneys represents Phillip P. Henke who is the fee simple owner of the Relay Station property. which is Parcel A as shown on the attached Plat. Parcel B is owned by Stagecoach Associates. Ltd..and is presently the subject of a land use application which has been filed by Stagecoach Associates. Ltd. Mr. Henke has rights for parking on Parcel B pursuant to a certain Parking Agreement. Right -of -Way and Noncompetitive Provision dated September 22. 1996 (the "Parking Agreement"). a copy of which is also enclosed. Our client attended the preliminary Planning and Zoning Commission consideration of Stagecoach's application on December 13. 1996. Mr. Henke had earlier discussions with Mr. John Wix. a principal of Stagecoach Associates. Ltd.. the present owner of Parcel B, and with Mr. David Brown, who as we understand it is the contract purchaser of Parcel B. in connection with the Parking Agreement. Those discussions have been in terms of Mr. Henke waiving and releasing all of his rights under the Parking Agreement in consideration of the transfer to Mr. Henke of what has been preliminarily designated as Lot 13 on the pending Application. Mr. Henke attended the December 13. 1996 meeting and learned for the first time at the meeting that the proposed Lot 13 is designated as Open Space/Common Area. Although subsequent conversations have taken place between myself and the representatives of Messrs. Wix and Brown. no resolution appears forthcoming. -0/5