Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 12.11.1996PC 12/11/96 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan and zone district text for the Ranch Creek PUD APPLICANT: PLANNERS: ENGINEERS: LOCATION: Jane J. Jenkins, Stagecoach Associates, Ltd. Stryker/Brown Architects McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd. CTL/Thompson, Inc. 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 Hwv 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 contains 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 have the previously noted existing dwellings. 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 a30 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 'D' 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 dnshed 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, 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. There is some guidance as to the number of condo/hotel units and the number of shops and the 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 SI 1'ES 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. ft 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 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, APPROPRIATE SITE 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 OPPORTUNITIES 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. 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 development. 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. 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 WAI'ER 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 accommodate 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 turn 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, particularly 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 Development 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 subdivision that the easement cannot be considered a part of the right -of - 9 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 COMPATIBILITY OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS: The proposed PUD is entirely a residential development, that has no internal compatibility in terms of the uses within the development. 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 issue of the development meeting the maximum density allowed for a PUD will need to be resolved. There will be further discussion of this issue in the review of Section 4.07.06. 4.07.02 The applicant has stated that there will be two covered (garag c port) and two addition spaces on each lot for a total off-street parking spaces for all residential areas 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: (1) The PUD shall have an appropriate relationship to the surrounding area, with unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area being minimized. The proposed PUD is residential in character and is consistent 10 in that sense with the residential character of the Ranch at Roaring Fork. The lots to the west of the proposed PUD are single family detached lots that are generally between 10,000 sq. ft. and 14,000 sq. ft. in size. To the east of the proposed development are townhouses that has 27 units on 6.67 acres or about 10,760 sq. ft. per dwelling on a gross density basis. Gross density being the total acreage divided by the number of dwellings. The proposed PUD has 25 dwellings on 5.586 acres or a gross density of 9,733 sq. ft. per dwelling. The proposed PUD is a little higher density than the existing development. 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. These concerns were based on a previous proposal that had a higher density. Unless the entire proposed development can become members of the existing homeowners association and have legal access to the common area, water and sewer systems and roads, there are compatibility conflicts. (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. The proposed internal 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. The applicant needs to address these concerns. There are separate pedestrian paths included in the design. 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 developer seems to have assumed that the County controls the roads within the development, which is not correct. Until there is an agreement between the R at 11 (3) RF/HOA, the County cannot unilaterally approve lots that access directly onto roads owned by the HOA. 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 has been discussed previously. There is a proposed location for additional off-street parking for guests in the designated park/parking area, but there is no definition as to the number of spaces. 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 is an area designated for park and parking. There is a fisherman's easement designated as a part of the lots that back up to Blue Creek, but is not really common open space. The only area that is common open space represents 5% of the overall area. It is then a question of whether or not this area meets the intent of the Common Open Space requirement for a PUD, if there is no confirmed claim to the common area that is a part of the existing development. If the fisherman's easement were to become common open space instead of an easement on a lot, then the development could meet the common open space requirements for a PUD. The PUD shall provide for variety in housing types and densities, other facilities and Common Open Space. The PUD provides for lot sizes that are not typical for the area, a small 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 12 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 the Ranch , but no other pedestrian areas are proposed for the development. 4.07.04 The maximum height of buildings has not been increased above the 25' height allowed in similar zone districts. 4.07.05 The PUD zone district text format is consistent with the county Zoning Resolution format. The following is an additional concern in addition to the previous comments regarding setbacks regarding the proposed PUD text: 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 4.475 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, Additionally, the prior zoning classification has to allow densities in excess of 4 dwellings/acre. 13 The applicant initiated an amendment to the PUD regulations to require that the water and sewer system be a public system and be available to the project. The water and sewer systems are owned by the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association. The Ranch HOA has previously taken the position that they do not have the capability to meet the demand for a previous proposal. (See R at RF comments pgs. /S — Z' ) The applicant's have submitted documentation that they believe gives them the right to expect that the R at RF is obligated to provide sewage treatment and that there is adequate capacity to accommodate the present proposal. This issue is tied in with the other issues that need to be resolved by the proposed PUD being included in the existing Ranch at Roaring Fork Home Owners Association. Any approval given to this project has to be tied directly to the resolution of the disagreements with the HOA either by recognition by the HOA of a willingness to serve the project and allow the PUD to be included in the present association or a court ordered action requiring the same result. 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 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. The Accommodations/Resort P/D can include multi -family dwellings in excess of four (4) dwelling units/acre. There is an argument that the density was established at the time of the rezoning establishes the underlying zoning. A portion of this project was originally allowed to have 40 condo/hotel units and at one time 25 multi -family units. Given the present proposal being consistent with a previous PUD approved for a portion of this PUD in terms of density, staff feels that the Board could make a finding that the proposal meets the requirements for a project with a density over 4 du/ac.. 4.07.07 The PUD is more than two (2) acres in size. 14 4.07.08 The uses permitted 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 fifty percent (50%) of the Common Open Space is an area of water. Provided, however, that the County Commissioners may reduce such requirement if they fined 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. If the previously noted resolution of the dispute is not accomplished, then the applicant needs to be able to 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. 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. (See previous HOA comments) The concerns expressed are related to the density proposed in a previous application; 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. 15 IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. 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 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. 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. 4. That the Garfield County Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed PUD, with conditions. IV. RECOMMENDATION At this time, staff is not in a position to determine whether or not the applicant's claims have any merit. The applicant's have submitted documentation to support their claim to the right to water, sewer and common open space rights. It is obvious that the Ranch at Roaring Fork HOA is not willing to accept all of the representations being made by the applicants. This means that these issues may have to be litigated, before there can be any claim to the water and sewer system connections and the right to use the common open space owned by the HOA. The resolution of this issue is necessary prior to the submittal of any subdivision application and as such staff recommends approval 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. ,ee,tic Lo 1 -;Left -7' 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. 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. 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. 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 the Department's agreement with the proposed road design. 17 2 z 7 6/ Na - e ALr>iA) SEP 30 '96 07 : GRM RRtICH HT RC PING FORT{ P . E - September 25, 1996 To: Board of Directors -Ranch at Roarin F c.r1 Homeowners Association From: George Hopfenbeck, Chairman of Leciai Committee Re: PUD/Subdivision Application for "Ranch geek" (Wix/Rrown and Jenkins Parcels) As promised, 1 have reviewed the PL;D/Subdivision Application for the project named Ranch Creek, dated August 25, 19 6, as submitted to Garfield County for approval. The Ranch received its first and only copy of the Application from the County about September 13. The Application covers the Jenkins parcel, which has previously been annexed into the Ranch, and the Wix/Brown parcel, which has been carved our. of the Commercial Parcel on which the Relay Station is located and which has not been anne: d to the Ranch. The Jenkins and WixfBrown parcels, combined, surround the Relay Station parcel on the east, south and west. The Application_ -vas submitted by Stryker/Brown Architects on behalf of the owners of the 2 parcels embraced in the PUD. Summary The following are the principal items to consider, each of which will be discussed more fully below: (1)The I'ral number of units planned s now 48, not the 28 which we were advised about. 2) Even the 28 units initially discussed, when added to the 10 lots coming n stream n the Elder Replat, may exceed the capacity of our sewer plant, our .w iter storne tank and our water supply well; (3) The density is extreme at 48 units and, even at 23 units, is higher than density in the Phase TV and Phase V sin 'e family home areas of the Ranch and than the density provided under Garfield County zoning requirements: (4) There is no effort to satisfy the open space r,.. iuirernents of the County; instead the Application seeks to claim credit for opel space in the Ranch even though the Wix/Brown pan of the PUD is not annexed to the Ranch and has no ownership interest in the Ranch common area and pays nothing to support the Ranch common area; (5) Standards for the Ranch Cr:ek PUD ere at variance with those in the Ranch at Roaring Fork, particularly i?; the smaller lot sizes, (b) the narrow 3 to 5 foot side yard setbacks in the R Inch Creek PUD instead of 10 feet as required in Phases IV and V of the Ranch .:t Roaring Fork. (c) the allowance of uncovered parking on each lot in the Ran,:'h Creek PUD rather than the requirement in Phases IV and V for `arae►es i or a minimum of 2 cars) on each lot, and (d) the 35 foot height limit in the Ranch Creek PUD compared to 30 feet in Phases IV and V; (6) The Ranch Creek Pt.: ifteorporates existing roads serving rhe Ranch at Roaring Fork as part of he road s_istem of the Ranch Creek PUD without dealing with the matter of sha, !',g in the costs of plowing, - /0 - SEP 20 '9G 07: 5THM RANCH AT ROt-iR I r l FORK maintenance, etc.; and (7) The PUD Applica tori contains assumptions and assertions which are questionable about the possibility of annexation of the Wix/Brown parcel into the Ranch, tha availability of eater and sewer service from the Ranch, and use of Ranch recreatio aal facilities and common area. 1 will also include some mi scellaneou ; _ omments at the end of this mento. Stitgaretial Increase t dumb+`; of nits. The Application for the Ranch Creek PUD asks for approval for 48 dwellirg units, instead of the 28 units which David Brown has previously represented to us. As previously represented, the Jenkins parcel, containing 2.599 acres. was ,Manned for 4 single family lets and 4 duplexes (S units) for a total of 12 dwelling units and the WixThrown parcel, containing 1987 acres, was planned tor 16 ;ingle family lots for a total of 1.6 dwelling units. Combined, the two parcels, as originally represented, would have 20 single family lots and 4 duplexes of 2 units each for a combined total of 28 dwelling units. However, now, as filed, the :'UD Application would add an "ancillary" or "granny" unit of about 500 sq laze feet of dwelling space on each of the 20 single family Iots, adding 20 dwelling units to the plan. The "ancillary" units would be available for rental. The "ancillary" units would have limits on the number of occupants. However, the limits might be illegal under federal laws preventing discrimination against families b.11 1 need to check this further. Available Sewer and Water Capacity. We need to have knowledgeable experts determine whether our existing sewar and water facilities have sufficient capacity to add to our systems both the 10 ti is in the Elder Replat and the 48, or even 28, units in the Ranch Creek PUD. Ow. existing taps are about 134, 1 understand. Adding 58 taps (10 Elder Replat and 48 Ranch Creek PUD) would increase our taps by 43,28%! Adding just 38 taps (10 Elder Replat and 28 Ranch Creek PUD) would increase our taps by 28.36%. Ron McLaughlin of McLaughlin Water Engineers has reported n me that our existing sewer facilities and permit will not handle this kind of incre le. I do not know whether our water well and water storage tank facilities rd permit are adequate but know that we have at times experienced low water pre -,sure during high residential water use periods of the day and have made efforts -c reduce demand on ow- well and water storage tank by encouraging irrigatior.of lawns with raw water from our ponds rather than with treated water from oar well and storage tank . Of course, if our members are ‘a piling, we can look into the feasibility of seeking revisions in our wastewater and w411 permits and of expanding our wastewater treatment, water vaa11 and water storage tank capacity in order to be able to provide the needed ser`;ice to the Ranch Creek FUD. However, I am sure that our members would not want to bear any cost in connection with such efforts. We are current'.- seeking homeowner approval of a �9 P SEP ,n 'C 07:5SAM RANCH AT ROARIN.: FORK special assessment to restore parts of our sewer tr eatmenplant and to add capacity but this effort is facing homeowner cpposition a_.. may not succeed. Density Excessive. With 4S dwelling anits on a combined 5.586 acres of the Jenkins and the Wix/Brown parcels, the .iensity is 8,6 units per acre. This is more than double the 4 units per acre density which I understand is normally allowed by County zoning. Even with the 3c, called ancillary units eliminated, the overall density for 28 units will be a little over 5 units per acre. The density on the WixlBrown portion of the Ranch Creek PUD is greater than on the Jenkins portion. With the ancillary units, the Wix/Brown parCel would have 32 units on 2.987 acres for a density of 10.7 units per acre. Without the ancillary units, the Wix/Brown parcel would have 16 units for a density of 5.4 units per acre. The Jenkins parcel, with ancillary units, would have 16 units on 2.599 acres for a density of 6.2 units per acre. Without ancillary units, the Jenkins parcel would have 12 units for a density of 4,6 units per acre. The high density of the PUD is acknowledged ledge.d in an interesting oblique way in the PUD Application which. on page 3, states that the PUD is designed "to conserve land use." Lack of C7pen Soace. The Ranch Creek PUD provides no open space although 1 understand that County requirem ,r:ts include requirements for open space. The lack of open space is explained by statements that there is plenty of open space in the Ranch at Roaring Fork. Perhaps this can work for the Jenkins parcel because it was always intended to be part of the Ranch, it is annexed into the Ranch and it therefore shares in the ownership of the Ranch's Common Recreation Reserve. The Jenkins parcel also is and will be obligated to pay dues and assessments to rhe Association for maintenance, operation. improvement and replacements of the Common Recreation Reserve. However, the Wix/Brown parcel is no; annexed into the Ranch but is part of the Commercial Parcel described in our governing Second Amended Declaration (and its predecessor declarations). The Second Amended Declaration in Section 2.7 (and predecessor declarations) states: "The Commercial Parcel, even though within the Ranch, shall not be part of the [Ranch at Roaring Fork] project and shall have no appurtenant undivided interests, rights or easements in the Common Recreation Reserve or in the Common Elements within the project". Thus, as to the Wi.x!Brown parcel, it is not proper to satisfy open space requirements by using open space in the Ranch at Roaring Fork. It is like a developer claiming the National Forest or his neighbor's land to satisfy open space obligations. - zo - P.4 SCP 30 '06 O r : SSAM RAHCH AT Rt_OARING FORD: Of course, if our members arc willing, we can consider annexing the WixBrown parcel into the Ranch. This `acu1i give the Wix/Brown parcel an interest in the Ranch Common Recreation Reserve and thereby give the Wix/Brown parcel some basis to use the Coalman Recreation Reserve to satisfy County open spaCe, requirements. However, its indicated below, annexation of the Wix/Brown parcel will require a 2l3rds vote. of members and could be difficult to achieve. Difference in Development Standard. Lot sizes, particularly on the Wix/Brown parcel, are smaller than single family lots in the Ranch. This is hinted at in the PUD Application (page 2) which states, innocuously, that the project will provide "wider variety of home and lot sizes than is currently found in the area". The PUD Application does not paint out that [he wider variety is all on the smaller side. Specific standards are at variance with covenants governing single family homes in Phases TV and V of the Ranch. Ganges are not required. Instead uncovered parking of up to 3 cars on a lot is permitted. Front yard setbacks for at least 16 lots on the W ixBrown parcel arc loss than the 30 foot front yard setback required in Phases IV and V. Side yard setbacks on the Wix/Brown parcel are as low as 3 to 5 feet compared to the 10 foot side yard setbacks required in Phases IV and V. The height limit of 35 feet set forth on page 6 of the PUD Application exceeds the 30 foot height allow e:I in Phases IV and V. And, of course, ancillary rental units are allowed on ail lots, unlike Phases [V and V. Road System Issues, The primary, acces roads serving the PUD are Stagecoach Lane on the east side of the PUD ind StazFcoach Drive on the north and west sides of the PUD. I am not clear about the ownership of these primary roads or the respective rights of the parties rc use these primary roads but I understand that the Ranch, and not the Count, handles the plowing of these roads if not other maintenance. The PUD Application does not address the rights of the PUD to use these roads and dces not address the cbliz,ation of the PUD to share in the costs of plowing and other maintenance. The PUD also shows two internal roads to serve the PUD, one on the Jenkins parcel and the other ori the Wix./3re•.vn parcel. Since the Jenkins parcel is annexed into the Ranch, the Ranch would presumably be obligated to maintain and plow the internal road within the Jenkins parcel. If so, the Ranch should ask that the specifications for this road he set forth in the PUD approval and the Ranch should insist that the specifications be acceptable for the Ranch to assume maintenance responsibility. Z! - P.5 SEP 30 '90 07:59HM RANCH OT ROARING FORK The PUD Application does not addre_ the means and manner or the party responsible for maintenance and plowing at the other internal road which is within the Wix/Brown parcel. Annexation into Ranch, The PUD Application expresses the hope that the PUD will be annexed into the Ranch (but st.ites that the PUD will go forward whether or not annexation occurs). The Jeni<-.ins parcel is already annexed into the Ranch so only the Wix,Brown parcel would require annexation. Under the Second Amended Declaration governing the Ranch, annexation of the Wix/Brown parcel into the Ranch will require the approval of 2/3i -cis of the voting power of the Association (See Section 5.1(b) of the Declaration). Members who fail to approve are considered as "no" votes, so annexation will not be easy to achieve. Without annexation of the Wix/Brown parcel, matters raised above, such as credit for open space in the Ranch to satisfy County open space requirements and such as plowing and maintenance of roads serving the PUD, become significant. Members of the Ranch Association might disapprove of annexation of the Wix/Brown parcel into the Ranch because of the high density, because the lot sizes and other development criteria, such as serbacks, are at variance with those prescribed in the covenants affecting the single family home areas of Phases P1 and V of the Ranch, and because the conversion of the Wix/Brown parcel from commercial zoning and use to residential will greatly increase the burden on the recreational facilities and Common Recreati,-)n Reserve of the Ranch and on the Ranch's water and sewer facilities. On the other hand, members of the A i3ociation might be willing to approve annexation of thc Wiz/Brown parcel because they prefer residential development to thc uncertainties of further c. c-mmercial development on the Wix/Brown portion of the Commercial Parcel and because dues and assessments collected from the additional residential unity should reduce the dues and assessments payable by existing residential owners in the Ranch. The Board of Directors cf :he Ranch A3sociati;;n obviously can not make the decision on annexation, PUD's Rigg to Wate: u�d Se :ver Ser' 'ce and to Use Ranch Common Are. The PUD Application asserts that owners within the PUD will have rights to water and sewer service from the Ranch and have rights to use the recreational facilities and Common Recreation Reserve for such things as fishing, golf, tennis, biking, hiking and horseback riding. This is 'rue for the Jenkins parcel because the Jenkins parcel has been annexed into the Ranch. It is unlikely this is true for the Wiz/Brown parcel, particularly if it is c,.,cvertcd from commercial zoning and use to high density residential zoning ancI use. P.E SEF 30 '36 08:01HM RI=iNC.H HT RUHRING FORK as Exhibit 12 to the PUD Application is totally incorrect in stating that the Ranch has agreed to provide water, sewer and fire protection services to the PUD. The basis for the letter is completely unknown. As far as I can determine, the letter was issued without authority from the Ranch or even consultation with the Ranch. The letter refers to exhibits supposedly documenting the asserted agreement of the Ranch but no such exhibit is attached or oxists. Ron McLaughlin has agreed to issue a letter revoking the letter attached as Exhibit 12 to the PUD Application,) Relocation of Water Line. The Site Pian for the PUD, dated August 25, 1996, indicates that a Ranch water line through the PUD is to be "abandoned" and relocated to a tortuous route through the PUD. The Association has given no authority for such line relocation. Before giving such authority, the Ranch should try to determine if the relocation might have an adverse impact on water pressure and velocity or otherwise and/or make maintenance, repairs and replacements more difficult. Fishing Easements. The PUD plan indicates the existence of fishing and pedestrian easements along so-called Blue Creek at the south side of the PUD but does not indicate who will be entitled to use these easements, Ranch Not Special District. The PUD Application, on page 7, states that the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association is a "Special District". This is not correct. Notice to Individual Ranch Members. The PUD Application includes, as Exhibit 29, a list of property owners with property within 300 feet of the PUD, including, of course, many Ranch home and ondominium owners. I checked with one on the list last weekend and he had not received any information about the PUD or the hearing on October 9, We sho:.ild check to see if owners listed on Exhibit 29 are entitled to receive information and notice of the hearing and, if so, whether this requirement has been met. In any event, as we decided at the Board meeting on September 20, we should let our members know about this PUD Application and make our copy available at the Ranch office for rn�:�. :s to review. Ranch Position. When David Brown carne to the Board to describe his plans, the Board stated that the Board would not take action in support of his plans without more detail and without advisin4 members of the Association about the plans and without receiving a vote or consensus in favor of Brown's plans. We now have more detail but not such vote or consensus. I understand the Ranch has been asked by the County to make comments on the PUD Application by September 30. Perhaps this memo can be used for this purpose and for use at the hearing scheduled, I understand, for October 9. -23- F.c