Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 PC Staff Report 08.14.13Planning Commission — Public Hearing Exhibits August 14, 2013 (continued from June 12, 2013) Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Rezoning Public Notice documents — .ublication and mailin s receipts B Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended C Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030, as amended D Application E Staff Report F Staff Presentation G Revised Adjacent Pro .ert Owner list submitted May 1, 2013 H Resolution 89-121 Preshana Farms PUD approval I Email dated April 29, 2013 from Janet Buck & John Leybourne, Town of Carbondale J Email dated May 6, 2013 from Mike Prehm, Road & Bridge K Letter dated Ma 9, 2013 from Chris Hale, Mountain Cross Engineering L Email dated Ma 15, 2013 from Bill Gavette, Carbondale Fire Protection District M Email dated May 28, 2013 from Care Gagnon, Assistant County Attorney Resolution 2000-16 Preshana Farms PUD Amendment 0 A. .licant response to staff and Commission issues, dated July 31, 2013 P Q REQUEST Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Rezoning Planning Commission August 14, 2013 — Continued from June 12, 2013 KE PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS 1) Amend the Preshana Farms PUD to remove the Equestrian Lot and related Equestrian District and Open Space District from the PUD; and 2) Rezone the Equestrian Center/Open Space District (as indicated below) as 'Rural'. PROPERTY OWNER Trend Investments, LLC REPRESENTATIVE Tim Malloy - TG Malloy Consulting, LLC LOCATION 3 Miles east of the Town of Carbondale on the west side of County Road 100, south of Highway 82 PROPERTY INFORMATION PUD 57.89 -acres —Equestrian Parcel 15.209 -acres WATER/SAN Central ACCESS CR 100 (Catherine Store Road) I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION Trend Investments, LLC requests a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to remove the Equestrian Lot located within the Equestrian Center/Open Space zone districts (as shown below) from the PUD and to rezone the Equestrian Lot as "Rural". This Lot is included in the PUD Plan and PUD Guide for the Preshana Farms PUD, approved by Resolutions 89-121, 98-11, 2000-016 and 2000-30. Currently Approved Preshana Farms PUD Site Plan 1 n..,r rPP 11rrw.. Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Rezoning Planning Commission August 14, 2013 — Continued from June 12, 2013 KE The application states that the amendment is requested in order to obtain a grant for the construction of the Ross Montessori School, however a request for PUD Amendment and rezoning does not obligate or guarantee that a school will be located on this site. The request to amend the PUD and rezone the parcel as Rural must stand alone, without consideration of a school on the site, and all permitted uses and dimensional standards within the Rural Zone District must be considered in the rezoning of the lot. HISTORY Resolution 89-121, EXHIBIT H, memorialized the original Board of County Commissioner approval of the Preshana Farms Planned Unit Development. This approval was modified by Resolution 98-11 (included in application as Exhibit 13). The PUD zoning included four (4) zone districts - two (2) residential zone districts permitted for 47 single family residential units; an Equestrian Center District which permitted agricultural uses, equestrian uses, vet clinic, day nursery, golf course, public events, etc. as well as three (3) employee housing units; and an Open Space District. The PUD had a significant amendment in 2000, approved in Resolution 2000-016, EXHIBIT N. This approval amended the zone district boundaries and zoning language and which resolution included the PUD Plan and PUD Guide which is currently effective today. A minor dimensional standard amendment, allowing for in Resolution 2000-30. The current zoning document applicable to 36" roof overhangs was approved the PUD is an attachment to Resolution 2000-30 while the PUD Plan, shown below, is an attachment to Resolution 2000-016. Iww MY W U ru ASPEN EQUESTRIAN ESTATES fiUJBDIVI$JON P.U.D. SITUATED WITHIN SECTION 31 TOWNSHIP 7 a. RANOR 07 W., OF m ETH F.M., COUNTY OF CARFIELD. STATE OF COLORADO ZONE DISTRICTS A8 OLSIONATED BY THE PRCBHANA PAU P.U.D. OPEN SPACE DISTRICT OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R20/S,P,R. DISTRICT EQUESTRIAN CENTER DISTRICT 1110 C9AY ENOf mi aC�LLrat 2 Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Rezoning Planning Commission August 14, 2013 — Continued from June 12, 2013 KE Subdivision of the PUD occurred via the Aspen Equestrian Estates Final Plat approved in June, 2000. This plat created Lots B1 — B11, El — E20, and C1 — C16 on 35.235 -acres utilizing the 47 single family Tots permitted within the PUD; 5.287 -acres of Right-of-way; 17.368 -acres of Common Open Space; and the 15.209 -acre Equestrian Lot, of which 5.23 -acres is platted as Open Space District, as shown below. In April, 2006 the Planning Commission considered a PUD Amendment, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Sketch Plan (as a comprehensive submittal) to redefine the uses permitted within the Equestrian Center Zone, including commercial and residential uses. This development proposal was reviewed by the Planning Commission but failed to move forward to Board of County Commissioners public hearing. 3 Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Rezoning Planning Commission August 14, 2013 — Continued from June 12, 2013 KE On October 24, 2012 the Planning Commission unanimously approved a Location and Extent application for the Ross Montessori School, with the approval memorialized by Resolution PC -2012-06 (included in the application materials as Exhibit 3). You may recall that this review process was the sole land use change permit necessary from the County for the use of the school, as an arm of the state, to occur at this location. II. LOCATION, ZONING AND ADJACENT USES The Preshana Farms PUD is located just south of Highway 82 behind Catherine Store. This area is comprised of subdivisions which include Blue Creek Ranch, St. Finnbar, TCI Lane Ranch and Ranch at Roaring Fork, see map below. Adjacent zoning include Planned Unit Development (PUD) for TCI Lane Ranch, Blue Creek and Ranch at Roaring Fork as well as Rural zoning for St. Finnbar and Commercial Limited for Catherine Store. III. REFERRAL AGENCIES Comments have been requested from the following agencies with comments received integrated throughout this memorandum, as applicable. 1. Road & Bridge — EXHIBIT J 2. RE -1 School District — No Response 3. Mountain Cross Engineering — EXHIBIT K 4. Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District — EXHIBIT L 5. Town of Carbondale — EXHIBIT I 4 Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Rezoning Planning Commission August 14, 2013 --Continued from June 12, 2013 KE IV. REVIEW CRITERIA & STANDARDS All amendments to an approved PUD shall be processed as a Rezoning as set forth in §4-112, of Article IV, Application and Review Procedures. Code sections applicable to this review includes §6-202, PUD Approval Standards, and §4-112(C), Rezoning Criteria. The Director of Community Development has determined that the requested amendment is a 'Substantial Modification' thus requiring a new application and public hearings with the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. However it is important to note that the PUD zoning change (amendment) is only for that 15.23 -acre Equestrian Center/Open Space parcel as described in the PUD Guide for Preshana Farms. The PUD criteria, as well as the rezoning criteria below, are listed below with the code sections in bold and staff comments in italics. SECTION 6-202 PUD APPROVAL STANDARDS. In addition to the standards set forth in Divisions 1, 2 and 3 of Article VII, Standards, the following standards shall apply to PUD applications. A. Compliance with Rezoning Standards. The PUD complies with the approval criteria in Section 4-201(C), Rezoning Criteria. Staff Comments: See section below for analysis of Rezoning Criteria. B. Relationship to Surrounding Area. The PUD will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area. The PUD is compatible with the scale, intensity and type of uses located on adjacent property. Staff Comments: The amendment to remove the Equestrian Lot from the PUD may change the relationship of the remaining area of the PUD to the surrounding area due to the open space district and agricultural uses of the site currently providing a buffer along Highway 82 and CR 100. This proposal will not affect the compatibility of the remainder of the PUD with adjacent properties. C. Visual lmpacts. The layout and design of the PUD shall preserve views and vistas, construction on ridgelines that are visible from major roadways or residential development shall be prohibited, and the design shall be compatible with the surrounding natural environment. Staff Comments: The amendment to remove the Equestrian Lot from the PUD may impact the existing visual quality of the remainder of the PUD as the Open Space District provides screening and buffering from SH 82 while the agricultural activities on the Equestrian Lot not only provided screening and buffering of the currently developed residential uses, but also provides rural character to the area, particularly from CR 100. D. Street Circulation System. 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 5 Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Rezoning Planning Commission August 14, 2013 —Continued from June 12, 2013 KE 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. Staff Comments: it does not appear that the removal of the parcel will impact the existing street circulation system within the PUD. E. Pedestrian Circulation. The PUD shall provide pedestrian ways throughout the PUD that allow residents to walk safely and conveniently among areas of the PUD. Staff Comments: it does not appear that the removal of the parcel will impact the existing pedestrian circulation within the PUD.. F. Open Space. The PUD shall preserve at least twenty-five (25) percent of the area as open space. Staff Comments: The PUD open space requirement of 25% was exceeded in the Preshana Farms PUD as the original approval stated that 40.8 -acres of the ±58 -acre site were open space. The PUD modification in 1998 reduced that amount of open space to 31.6 -acres. The open space that appears on the Aspen Equestrian Estates Subdivision Plat includes two areas described as Subdivision Common Area/Open Space and which total 17.388 -acres - the removal of the Equestrian Lot will result in the percentage of open space increasing to 41% of the area remaining within the PUD. G. Housing Variety. The PUD shall provide for variety in housing types, price and ownership forms. Staff Comments: The Preshana Farms PUD housing variety will not be impacted by the approval of this application except for the loss of the three (3) employee units associated with the Equestrian Lot. H. Affordable Housing. The PUD shall comply with affordable housing requirements applicable pursuant to Section 8- 102 of Article VIII, Affordable Housing. Staff Comments: Removal of the parcel from the PUD will result in the loss of three (3) employee units that are approved to be located within the Equestrian Lot by the Preshana Farms PUD zoning. The units are not associated with the Garfield County Housing Authority and are privately managed. The rezoning will render any existing employee unit on the site as non -conforming within the Rural Zone District; however the applicant has not verified the existence of any of these units. This verification is necessary as the non -conformity must be documented in order for the use to continue. I. Fire Hazards. Fire hazards will not be created or increased; Staff Comments: Removal of the Equestrian Lot from the PUD will not increase or create fire hazards. 6 Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Rezoning Planning Commission August 14, 2013 — Continued from June 1Z 2013 KE J. Recreation Amenities. The PUD shall provide recreational opportunities and amenities to residents of the PUD. Staff Comments: The applicant has represented that the residents do not utilize the existing commercial equestrian facility therefore the removal should not impact existing recreational amenities within the PUD which include tennis courts and a swimming pool. K. Adequacy of Supporting Materials. The Final PUD Plan meets all planning, engineering, and surveying requirements of these Regulations for maps, data, surveys, analyses, studies, reports, plans, designs, documents, and other supporting materials. Staff Comments: The applicant has provided a revised PUD Plan and PUD Guide to be recorded at the time of approval of this request. L. Taxes. All taxes applicable to the land have been paid, as certified by the County Treasurer's Office. Staff Comments: It appears that all taxes due have been paid on the Equestrian Lot. M. Adequate Water Supply. An Adequate Water Supply will be demonstrated in compliance with the standards in Section 7- 105. Staff Comments: The removal of the parcel from the PUD will not impact the water supply currently in place. Section 4-112 C. Review Criteria. An application for rezoning shall meet the following criteria: 1. The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly development pattern and would not constitute spot zoning. Staff Comments: There is no immediately adjacent property to the Equestrian Lot that is zoned Rural, however the Rural zone district is located on the north side of Highway 82. The request would return the Lot to the underlying zone district with the site subject to the uses and standards contained in the Unified Land Use Resolution. 2. The area to which the proposed rezoning would apply has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area. Staff Comments: With the exception of Catherine Store, the area surrounding the PUD is a rural residential area which includes Ranch at Roaring Fork, Blue Creek Ranch and St. Finnbar. The rezoning of the ±15 -acre site may be in the public interest but that is dependent upon the future use(s) on the site which cannot be determined at this time. 7 Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Rezoning Planning Commission August 14, 2013 — Continued from June 12, 2013 KE 3. The proposed rezoning addresses a demonstrated community need with respect to facilities, services, or housing. Staff Comments: The applicant has represented that the Ross Montessori School will be located on the site however there is no guarantee of this use therefore the permitted uses within the Rural Zone District must be utilized to make this determination. The agricultural and residential uses permitted within that district may address a demonstrated community need but that cannot be determined at this time. 4. The proposed rezoning is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and in compliance with any applicable Intergovernmental Agreement. Staff Comments: The Future Land Use Map designation for this site is Residential Medium High as well as being subject to "Village Center". The Rural Zone District is listed as a compatible zone district for this designation. Any use or future development proposed for the site, other than those that are use -by -right or the school, would need to be consistent this designation. 5. The proposed rezoning addresses errors in the original zone district map. Staff Comments: Nat applicable. V. STAFF DISCUSSION Staff has identified several issues for consideration: 1. The rezoning of the parcel will remove zoned Open Space from the PUD, open space which the applicant has stated that was not 'required' as the PUD exceeded the minimum 25% open space at the time of the original approval. The development has been subject to an historical progression of reducing the open space considered a part of the original zoning approvals. The original approvals included in excess of 60% of the site as open space. 8 Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Rezoning Planning Commission August 14, 2013 — Continued from June 12, 2013 KE The request to remove a portion of the PUD zoned and platted as Open Space is an issue for discussion, however it must also be noted that the removal of the Equestrian Lot will increase the percentage of open space in the remainder of the PUD. 2. The rezoning of the parcel to Rural will create non -conforming uses on the site which include the employee units and the Commercial Equestrian Facility. These uses are not permitted by - right within the Rural Zone District. The applicant must demonstrate the existence of the employee units at the time of the rezoning so that the County can document the non- conforming status of the units. 3. The removal of the Equestrian Lot from the PUD and rezoning to Rural is premised on the development of the Ross Montessori School. It would appear that the school has met the statutory obligations with regard to County review necessary for development (through Location & Extent) and therefore, from a zoning perspective, this request is not necessary to develop the school at this site. The lack of guarantee of development of the school may result in unintended consequences including the creation and on-going use of non -conforming uses within the Rural zone, as well as the potential uses allowed in the Rural Zone District that may be incompatible with the adjacent residences. 4. The site is platted as the Aspen Equestrian Estates Subdivision which designates the 15.2 -acre subject property as "Equestrian Center/Open Space District" with 5.2 -acres designated within the as Open Space District. A plat amendment is not contemplated by the applicant and therefore any proposed use or structure (other than the school) would have to comply with the plat restrictions in addition to the Rural zoning uses and dimensional standards. VI. SUGGESTED FINDINGS The request necessitates two separate actions by the Planning Commission, the first of which is related to the request for a PUD Amendment for the Preshana Farms PUD. Once a recommendation is issued on PUD Amendment the Planning Commission should consider the request to rezone the parcel to Rural. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the PUD Amendment and rezoning staff provides the following findings which could be amended based upon Commission's review: 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the requested PUD Amendment and rezoning of the Preshana Farms PUD Equestrian Lot, currently zoned as PUD Equestrian Center and Open Space District, to "Rural" may be in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 9 Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Rezoning Planning Commission August 14, 2013 — Continued from June 12, 2013 KE 4. That the application has met the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. 5. That the application has met the requirements of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended. VII. PLANNING COMMISSION OPTIONS AND DELIBERATION Once again, it is necessary to reiterate that this review includes two separate recommendations from the Planning Commission — the first regarding the request for an amendment to the Preshana Farms PUD, and the second regarding the request to rezone that area within the Equestrian Lot, currently zoned as PUD Equestrian Center and Open Space, to Rural: 1. The Planning Commission can recommend approval of the request for the PUD Amendment to Preshana Farms and rezone the Equestrian Center/Open Space Districts contained within the Equestrian Lot to Rural. 2. The Planning Commission can recommend denial of the request for the PUD Amendment to Preshana Farms. If this decision is made then the request for rezoning cannot occur. 3. The Planning Commission can continue the hearing in order to obtain additional information. 10 ACCOUNTNO R007178 R006286 R006310 R006274 R006279 R009780 R006287 R006285 R111264 R006298 R009777 R006288 R006280 R007180 R006290 R006290 R006281 R006265 R006283 R006295 R008547 R006296 R006278 R006276 R006289 R011621 R006291 R006299 R006272 R011706 R111445 R006294 R112105 R011622 R006297 OWNER NAME AMD INVESTORS LLC ANSON, CHRISTOPHER D & THOMAS, VICTORIA ASPEN EQUESTRIAN ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC BENDER, RUDY & GINA REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 7/5/05 BLACK, RHONDA BLUE CREEK RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION BRAMLET, DEAN A CARTER, RANDOLPH J & TERRI L CATHERINE STORE VENTURES, LLC DAMEROW, STEVE & ALEX DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF COLORADO DIAMOND, JOHN W FARRELL, ALISSA M & DAVID A FINNBAR, LLC GERSTLEY, BEI 1 Y S GERSTLEY, DOROTHY MAE GREENLAW, VALDONNA HALEVY, SUZAN M HARRIS, JAMES A & CHRISTINA E HAYS, HENRY DAVID & LYNN COUSINEAU JRP, LLC KUHN, LINDSAY & LUBRANT, DAVID KUNGLI, VICTOR IRVING & SONIA MARIA LABYA, HTANGSAN C LITZ, CLAUSPE 1 ER & MARGRIT MAISON, NANCY M & JOSEPH H MARTIN, MICHAEL P MCDADE, JOHN JR & D& 5 FAMILY HOLDINGS LLC OLSON, MARY PUCAK, CAROLJ RANCH AT ROARING FORK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC RINALDI, WILLIAM JOSEPH ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ROBINSON URBAN FARM, LLC ROBSON, PE 1 ER D & JEAN M ADDRESS E HYMAN AVENUE, APT 1E 835 EAST DURANTAVENUE #1 PO BOX 4788 PO BOX 7901 0076 CORRAL DRIVE NO 24 105 PONDEROSA PASS 2027 BRIGHTWATERS BLVD NE 91 CORRAL DRIVE 15783 HIGHWAY 82 3816 W NANCY COLE PLACE 4201 E ARKANSAS AVENUE 37 CORRAL DRIVE 94 CORRAL DRIVE PO BOX 1149 42575 E HWY 82 260 EQUESTRIAN WAY 4500 W HINSDALE 200 BRISTLECONE DRIVE 123 CORRAL DRIVE 374 EQUESTRIAN WAY 485 COUNTY ROAD 112 338 STAGE COACH TRAIL 62 CORRAL DRIVE 34 CORRAL DRIVE 6769 N CREEK LANE 15452 HIGHWAY82 839 MAIN STREET #16 PO BOX 810 PO BOX 3919 478 STAGECOACH LANE 14913 HIGHWAY 82 350 EQUESTRIAN WAY 530 E MAIN STREET 912 COUNTY ROAD 113 400 EQUESTRIAN WAY CITY STATE ZIPCODE ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 CARBONDALE CO 81623 CARBONDALE CO 81623 ST PETERSBURG FL 33704 CARBONDALE CO 81623 CARBONDALE CO 81623 ATLANTA GA 30319 DENVER CO 80222 CARBONDALE CO 81623 CARBONDALE CO 81623 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81611 CARBONDALE CO 81623 LITTLETON CO 80128 CARBON DALE CO 81623 CARBONDALE CO 81623 CARBONDALE CO 81623 CARBON DALE CO 81623 DU RAN GO CO 81301 CARBONDALE CO 81623 CARBON DALE CO 81623 DALLAS TX 75240 CARBONDALE CO 81623 TORRINGTON CT 6790 EAGLE CO 81631 BASALT CO 81621 CARBONDALE CO 81623-9562 CARBONDALE CO 81623 CARBONDALE CO 81623-9146 ASPEN CO 81611 CARBONDALE CO 81623 CARBONDALE CO 81623 R011708 R006264 R006263 R006269 R011709 R009727 R011711 R011707 R006275 R007176 R011710 R006262 R006277 R006282 R006284 R007177 R006266 R006271 R006292 R006270 ROSS, JULIE SHERLON INVESTMENTS LLC SOLDOFF, PAMELA M STEARN BUILDING SYSTEMS, LLC STITES, PATRICIA L STOKES, JAMES M & MARY M STUCKEY, RICHARD N & MARY E SUNDBERG, MARTA) THOMAS, SUSAN THOMPSON, TERRY & PAMELA M TINDALL, JOHN A & SUSAN K TREND INVESTMENTS, LLC WEINBERG, JAY N WHITE, STARKER WHITEHILL PROPERTIES II LLC WILSON, KEVIN & WREN, LAURA WITT, LISA KROLL WRIGHT, LORRIE YOUNG, CATHERINE H YOUNG, THOMAS P & SUZANNE K 481 STAGECOACH LANE 600 BRICKELL AVENUE, SUITE 1400 493 HOLLAND HILLS ROAD PO BOX 3211 0477 STAGECOACH LANE 3220 COUNTY ROAD 100 2552 EASTALAMEDA AVE 218 E VALLEY ROAD, SU ITE 104-282 PO BOX 51834 0233 VAQUERO ROAD 473 STAGECOACH IN PO BOX 2598 PO BOX 2598 501 18TH AVENUE 1301 CAMBRIDGE STREET#101 PO BOX 212 2810 POLO ISLAND DRIVE, UNIT #C101 PO BOX 67 PO BOX 4534 2202 BENNETTAVENUE CARBONDALE CO MIAMI FL BASALT CO WESTPORT CT CARBON DALE CO CARBONDALE CO DENVER CO CARBONDALE CO LAFAYETTE LA CARBONDALE CO CARBONDALE CO RANCHO SANTA CA RANCHO SANTA CA ROCKFORD IL HOPKINS MN CARBONDALE CO WELLINGTON FL WOODY CREEK CO EAGLE CO GLENWOOD SPF CO 81623 33131 81621 6880 81623 81623 80209 81623 70505 81623 81623 92067 92067 61104 55343 81621 33414 81656 81631 81601 r4eoorded at '�� a'clock_,a_an su 07 Aws Reoeptfon No. IMILDRED AI.SDORF, RECORDER OARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) f• h 4 l� .44 At a rugu]HC meetingof the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Coorado, held at the Commissioners' Meeting Room at the Garfield County Courthouse in Glenwood Springs on the sr.h day of Seutambar A.D. 1969 , there were present* '0910 k, Maokl¢y Elmer (I3uckey) Arbaney" Pon DcFord M1ldred Alsdgrf ONO Desohanao , Commissioner Chairman , Commissioner , Commissioner , County Attorney , Clerk of the Board , County Administrator when the fr._lowing proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wits RESOLUTION NO. B9-.721 • A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION OF HENRY AND LANA TRETTIN FOR THE PRESHANA FARMS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL OF ITS PLAN. WHEREAS, Henry and Lena Trettin have tiled an application with the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, for the approval of the Preshana Farms.Planned Unit Development and approval of its plan for the parcel of land to be rezoned; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by this Board on August 7, 1989; WHEREAS, based on evidence, sworn testimony, exhibits,• study of the Comprehensive Alan for the unincorporated areas of Garfield County, comments from the Garfield County Planning Department and the Garfield County Planning Commission, and co!unents.from all interested parties, this Board finds, based on substantial competent evidenoe, as follows 1. That proper publication and public notice was provided, as required by law, for the hearing before the Board; 2. That the hearing before the Board was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted,' and that all interested parties were heard at the hearing; '•iJ 3. That the Garfield County Planning Commission has recommended to `t this Board that the regpeated zoning change be granted, provided that certain conditions be imposed upon the applicant. rd 4. :That the proposed P.U.D. zoning ie in general conformity with the purposes set forth in Section 4 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, and will meet the purposes set forth therein; 5. That the proposed P.U.D. zoning is in general compliance with the recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated area of the County; provided proper mitigation is performed to mitigate impacts; 6. That the requested Planned Unit Development is in general compliance with all requirements of the applicable Garfield County Zoning Resolution and, further, that the requested Planned Unit Development is suitable and appropriate for the subject property, given the location, oondition•and circumstances of the property, and it is generally compatible with existing land uses in the surrounding nearby area; 7. That for the above -stated and other reasons, the proposed Planned Unit Development Modification and Planned Unit Development Plan is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County; and B}g '762 nGr536 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of.County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that the application for the approval of the Preshana Farms Planned Unit Development be approved for the following described property in the unincorporated area of Garfield County, as followsl 1. That the zoning text of the Planned Unit Development plan for the Preshana farms Planned Unit Development is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by reference as is fully set forth herein. 2. That the Planned Unit Development map for the Preshana Farms Unit Development is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 3. That the legal description of the property which encompasses the Preshana Farms Planned Unit Development is attached herein as Exhibit "C", incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 4. That at the time of Preliminary Plan submittal, a water distribution and sewage disposal system plan be submitted that is acceptable to the Colorado Department of Health. 5. That the Preliminary Plan include., plans for acceleration and deceleration lanes on County Road 100. September ;r:'A:D;:.1g89 . • Ga Kirin =otikrsr . BOARD .OF coMMISazaNRRs GARPIELD COUIiTY i'"COLORADO d Chai.xme n seconded.,thB foregoing Resolution was Dated this 5th day of ATTEST; Cl k of the Board Upon motion duly made and adopted by the following vote: Marian Z. Smith Aye Aye Aye - Arnold G. Markley Mazer (6uokeyAbney SATE OF COLORADO County of Garfield • xr , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk:" of the Board of County Commissioners in- and for the County and State;* aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is -7..-.' truly copied from the Records of the Proceedings of the Board of County,A1 Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. ;a;O ..rs_ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of 19 County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk.=•'r of the Board of County Commissioners. • •5'• ". • • '. • • • ' • PRtsHANA FARM PUD • zasm RDGULATICNS SECIUON T. 1%.irterY • • " '• BOOK 7rn2 OME . ExHifir 4 A. To Carry out the purposes and provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resoluticn, Garfield County, Colorado, and particularly, Section 4.00 of that title, as amended, the Freshens Farm Planned Unit Development Zoning District is further divided into the following Zone District Classifications: - Open Space District - Equestrian Center District - Single Family District' - Cluster Housing District - Service Residential District B. The boundaries of these districts shall be located as shown on the Freshens Farm P.U.D. Plan. Section XI. Open Space District A. Uses, ty Right: • - Agricultural use including tarm,,gaideninurseryvOChands, ranch and _ , • customary accessory uses includinOonildingt:forAelter or encicsure .of animals or property employeedLinany'ef3Aeabeve uses. Open Space. .• •:•:•.:-.:,;. - . .„- , • .,:,..., . „,, -.„ • ., Equestrian activities including P0bile;eq 'tiiakrerVents addended by ,.... less than 300 speotators. . .....,... , . Water impoundments. • B. Uses, Conditional: Nene C. Uses, Special: Public Events - Greater than 300 spectators. • • , • • , VINO "1.4.111,1%`;',61;::::•-(e4:'...t.,:::.•Q•:,:":7,gut...-21.A6t-b- ge 2 Threshana Farm PUD Zone Regulations . . , . .. , ... .. .. ... . . . . . . . Danestic Water Storage Structure Wastewater Treatment Facility. D. Minimum Lot Area: None E. MaXiMUTI Lot Coverage: None F. Mint Setback: Front Yard 20 Feet Rear Yard 20 Feet Side Yard 20 Feet G. Maximum Building Height: 25 feet Section 111. Equestrian Center District A. Uses, :TIN:2i9ht: BO 762 pt Agricultural used including farrniarden,.nurtery, orchards, ranch and customary accessory uses includinipauildings for shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or property employed:timely of the above uses. Single family, tx..lo-family, reii-taniilY:dellingi for persons employed on the premises. •• . • • • • Riding Stable Tack shcp Veterinary Clinic Kennel Day Nursery, Camp, and SchOOL' • II. Uses.t Conditional: None C. Uses, Special: Dcmestic Water Storage'Structure. Wastewater Treatment Facility. ..• 3 EI.A i;E:13*. bfo lAq2 fta539. Page 3 Preshana Farm PUD Zone Regulations D. Mininm Lot Area: None E. Maximmn Lot Coverage: F. Minimum Setback: Front Yard 25 Feet Rear Yard 25 Peet Side Yard 25 Etet G. Maximum Building Height: 25 Feet H. Off -Street Parking: Single Family Dwelling - 2 parking spaces. Two-Pamily & Multi -Family Dwelling - 1-1/2 parking spaces. Section LV. Simile Family District ' • • • • , • ' A. Uses, alqght: Single family dwelling and „tliatetwary...,aCcessory uses including buildings for the enclosure of,piOperty.LaCeassory to the u of the lot for residential purroset4md4sv-Aedges, gardens, and malls and similar landscape featureic•-•116',AninialShall be kept on a lot except for dogs and oats, :Whi.i6h*mavte. kept for non-coMmercial purposes. • Mater impoundMents Live-in maids and caretakers quarteiS46httaChed to the primary residence on the Lot and not exceeding•650 -square feet in floor area COmmunity Recreation Facilities for use of Preshana Farm POD residents and guests. B. Uses, Conditional: ..• Park, open space None C. Uses, Special: Wastewater Treatment Facility . ,....:A),.. -i. ::::-.-•-• . •_-..,.• :., • ._ _ .. • ...• .• •-.;...;.•;:er . . -. .. • :-....-,-.-....,0...- c..•.-:,..•...•••..•, . .• ' , , .:..,.. .:• -, • :-.-.4,:,,,,.:,....-,,-. ..;,. ,,-,•:),..i.....,:-.., „...,...-.••••.,,,-.4:%k„...,4-.g.,0 .,,-.,,,i .. .. . • -. z,. , _...tt-t,?'. '1...-''';; ''''' ' - •• ,-,.." vo,e,,SJ A. ,-,E-, ---i ..11•••••••,- va.44... 4... A..., .0. t-• ..., 1:---.:- ........ A...., . - - .. f •'''y A , ,• • ..; - - - -- . -, - • • • '• •• • - -,•• ' ..et,,,,,,, -,.10. • ... ,-4 -..- -,-....v, --- ...1....7--.:.p'..-..,,,.........!•••;.t.q.0-...r-":11.7-4...,a-,14 ..tideme- ,,24',A,•••• • '1;4 .4. .:.•-•! ,5q,5wmwimet • . • 19rf. 762 fstt54.0 D. Minimum lot Area: 14,000 square feet • • Page 4 Preshana Farm PUD Zone Regulations • • ..• • • . • alximum-lot coverage: res 60% F. Minimum Setbacks: Front Yard 20 Feet Rear Yard . 20 keet Side Yard. 20 Feet fqj G. Maxirrum Height of Buildings: •••• 27 feet H. Off -Street Parking: •• - i Four parklng spaces per single family dwelling unit. . - One parking space per caretaker unit. ••••.-1„, The Community Recreation Facility shall provide a minims of six parking spaces. '.7tX Section V. Cluster Housing District A. Uses. ',ay Right: 44). Single family and two fami.lyAi4eilinge';ind;customary accessory 1.15s • -.4 .,•..e,:nr: II, %.4 including buildings for the.encicsure/:property accessory to the use • ,;,,,` 1 of the lot for residential,pUipbeeT;andlenceshedges, gardens, and ....qt ..: walls and similar lan:lscape .featutes;•ito.anisnals shall. be kept on a in Water councluents PuxPoses Park, open space lot except for dogs and cats,..-;Trilic!),•_::tra.._Y-.::•••.kept for non-casnercial .'';',-....-,... ..., •:?:-.'-'.. ., .-, •-.•• k 714j.,T :44 el i B. UspilL Conditional: .....-....,......... ... _.. ., f:4 ; • 41',4 None .., ...; ..,. C. Uses, SRni.: ... :':.•',;,.... '.•'1,!:.!1.;" None r..'.-! *Y. D. Minimum 1,,at Area: A .-I.L. 5,000 square feet ...-:.1.:.'';:•:'...::::;.:'..'''.:;;:',;; ' ":.:4•T -,..t .......,,,, „., ..., ,...-..,i • . • •••••• • Page 5 Preshana Farm PUD Zone Regulations riOrN ; B^or, ,,G2 n E. Maximum Lot Coverage: 60% F. Minimum Setbacks: As shown on the Preshana Farm Final Plat .G. Maximum Height of Buildings: 27 feet H. Off -Street Parking: No Parking Spaces/Dwelling Unit Section VI. Service Residential District A. Uses,. Bim+, Right: Single family and two farm., dwellings and customary accessory uses including buildings for the enclosure of property accessory to the use of the lot for residential purposes and fences, hedges, gardens, and walls and similar landscape features. NO animals shall. be kept on a lot except for dogs and cats, which may be kept for non-commercial purposes. D. Uses, Conditional: None C. Uses Smolal. Bed and Breakfast Inn - (MaxirrtUiii:'lU?:7coCYn�) Restaurant (Maximum Seatin'gb D. Minimum Lot Area: 15,000 square feet E. Maximum Lot Coverage: 60% F. Minimum Setbacks From Ladgi.ng:pistrict Boundaries: Font Yard 20 Feet _ Rear Yard 20 Feet Side Yard 20 Feet •o.S+YJ'.•14:i1� :`S.�a':!�"—Y• .i-H,"f 1*f :M r. Al :41 41 4 1 53 Pane '6 Preshana Farm POO Zone Regulations G. Maximum Height of Buildings: 25 Eeet H. Off -Street Parking: Lodging Unit 1 Restaurant -- 1 Single Family Dwelling - 2 Two Family Dwelling - 1 Revised O8-23-89 b:pEzr8-23 'rc tr parking space/unit space/4 seats packing spaces 1/2 parking spaces, ." gOrTgz.. ;it• it 614.•f� F� 4 }�Y �xryxry B(IN 71132 140E • a 1.'„•4,Y,r• • -•• •••••• •r• -•,••• • 11 Mrc ' 1. . , . , .. • • .:•-••1.1,54.Pec,•;•1, ‘•• . MND USE sripater Mi0T 110'.6 ARES Xet POD OPEN SPACE DiSTAIOT 3013 52.65 EDUEIVIRlAN GOITER 0/5110CT 10 102 17.62 SINGLE MALY &MOT 15 108 1803 OLIX3W.R /60051110 MIRK/ 11 3.6 4,142 Sell*CE RE51014111AL 01.61RICT DI5U.1100 LINTS 2 2.6 4.46 1.0006O ()NITS ID TOTAL WALLIN MIS 38 67.9 TOTAL LOOM MU 10 100.00 041014 DENSITY (6ELL510 1)8118) .68 1,6•161/Aerr ....... , • —_, , SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT LL 0 PUD ZONE MAP .PRESBANA FARM ••••: •••.- • • • • • , 8(0 7S2 nti5 EVM6/r d PROPERTY DESCRYPTio?l A parcel of land situated in a portion of Lots 3, 4, 6, 17, 18 -and 19 of Section 31, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Garfield, State of Colorado, said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Witness Corner to the Northeast Corner of said Section 31, a stone in place; thence 5,60°01'05"W. 2350.39 feet to the Southeast Corner of >a Reception No. 279416, also being a point on the westerly right-of-way of County Road No. 100, a rebar and cap L.S. No. 10732 In place, the True Point of Beginning; thence 3.00.11'299R. along said westerly right -of -gray 827.14 feet to a rebar and cap L.S. No. 10732 In place; thence continuing along said westerly right -of -may 5.03°55'29"W. 117.74 feet to a rebar and cap L. S. No. 10232 in place; thence continuing along said westerly right-of-way 3.11.37'27MR. 299.44 feet; thence leaving said westerly right'of-way N.72°41'32"W. along 8, line being northerly of Blue Creek 236.34 feet; thence continuing along'a line being northerly of Blue Creek t1.77°44'52"W. 317.09 feet; thence continuing along a line being northerly of Blue Creek H.62.4e'46"W. 375.98 feet; thence continuing along a line being northerly of Blue Creek 11.41°30'29"W. 89.74 feet; thence continuing along a line being northerly of Blue Creek 14.81°01'17"W. 285.92 feet; thence N.13°12'20"8. 120.00 feet to a point in an existing Bence; thence N.76647'40"W. along said existing fence 1038.73 feet to a point on the easterly line of Parcel B of Reception No. 375658 (from whence rebar and cap L.S. No. 10732 bears 3.00°00'18"W. 263,28 feet); thence N.00°O0'18"L. along said easterly line 1013.61 feet'to a point on the southerly right-of-way of Colorado State Highway No. 82 as evidenced by existing rig! t -of -Way mntam ants and the existing centerline (whence a rebar and cap L.B. So, 3317 bears 9.00'00'18"W. 3.99 feet); thence 5,79'56'55" E. along said. ,southerly right -of -Way 1982.27 feet; thence S,10°30'58"W. along the easterly line-of,faiddlteceptiOn No. 279416 133.47 feet to a rebar and cap L.S. No. 107324rs' place; the;ue S.79'44'32" L. 9 along the southerly line of said Reception No:279416=747 29 feet to the True Point of Beginning; said parcel containing.:57,689 oar's;ri re or less. • Together with a perpetual easement •beinig .a''"partdn:.of Parcel "8" shown in Reception No, 375656 situated in a portiom-Ofribt l7 Of Section 81, drip 7 South, Range 87 west of the Sixth Principallielldiar;:.County of Garfield, State of Colorado; said easment being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Witness Corner to the Northeast Corner of said Section 31, a stone in place; thence S.81.10'28"W. 4257.59 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way of State Hiway No. 82, the True Point of Begiinning; thence 5.00°00'18% along the easterly line of said Parcel "B" 1013.61 feet to a point on an existing Pence; thence N.76'47'40"W. along said fence 67.27 feet to a point on the westerly line of said Parcel "B"; thence N.00°07'35"E. along said westerly line 1009.48 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way of said State Highway No. 82; thence 9.79°55'55"E. along said southerly right-of- way ight-ofway 64.35 feet to the True Point of Beginning; said easement containing 1.496 acres, more or ,less. • From: Janet Buck To: Kathv A. Eastiev Co: Johrt.Levhoume Subjects Ross Montessori School Dates Monday, April 29, 2013 3:44:06 PM EXHIBIT 1 5 - Thank you for forward the application for the Ross Montessori proposal (Preshana Farm PUD Equestrian rezoning) for the Town's comments. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at its April 25, 2013 meeting. The Commission agreed that their previous comments were still applicable and asked me to forward them on to you. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions. Janet Buck Planner Town of Carbondale From: John Leybourne Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:54 PM To: 'Tamra Allen' Subject: Ross Montessori School Tamra, Thank you for forwarding the Ross Montessori Location and Extent Review application and the opportunity to comment on the application Staff presented the above application to the Planning and Zoning Commission for comment at the October 11th meeting. The Commission Felt that if further development was to occur along the Catherine Store road (County Road 100) then the county may need to address access across the Bridge for both vehicle and pedestrians. There could be an increase in pedestrian use of the RFTA Rio Grande Trail by students of the school once this increase in traffic reaches the bridge there may be an increase of vehicular/pedestrian conflicts. Once again thank you for forwarding the application for review and comment. John M Leybourne Town of Carbondale 511 Colorado Ave. Carbondale, CO 81623 970-510-1212 jJeybourneOcarbondaleco.net From: Michael PI ehm To: Kathy A, Eastlev Subject: Amend the Preshana Farm PUD Date: Monday, May 06, 2013 7:04:18 AM Kathy, 1 EXHIBIT After reviewing this application to remove the Equestrian lot from the PUD and rezone It as "Rural", I have no concerns. I have some comments as to a school at this location. This location Is at the Intersection of Hwy 82 and County Road 100. County Road 100 Is one of the highest volume roads In Garfield County, school traffic would impact this road and intersection because, school drop off and pick up would be around peak traffic times. Also their are no sidewalks or shoulder along CR 100 that would support pedestrians or bicycles. The Catherine Store bridge on CR 100 is located between the proposed school and the existing RFTA bike path. This bridge Is a two lane bridge with no pedestrian crossing. If any improvements are to be made to this property, a driveway permit for each driveway would need to be obtained from Garfield County Road & Bridge. Please contact me If you have any questions, Mike Foreman/Glenwood District Garfield County R & B (970) 945-1223 Office (970) 618-7109 Cell (970) 945-1318 Fax May 9, 2013 Ms. Kathy Eastley Garfield County Planning 108 $`l' Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design EXHIBIT 1 RE: Review of Preshana Farm PUD, Equestrian Lot: PDAA 7510 & ZDAA 7509 Dear Kathy: This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the PUD Amendment and Rezoning applications for Preshana Farm PUD. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The review generated no comments. Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments.. Sincerely, Mounta'n Cross Engineer ng, Inc. Chris Hale, PE 826 % Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945,5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross•eng.com From: @ill Gavette To; Kathy A. Eastlev Subject: Preshana Farms PUD Amendment Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 11:04:24 AM Kathy, EXHIBIT I 1, I have reviewed the submittal for the proposed Preshana Farms PUD amendment and I have no issues with the proposal. Thanks, 8111 Gavette Deputy Chief Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District www. carbondalefire.org 970-963-2491 Iwo PINE • l:AMS • ItESCLIE From: Carev Gagnon To: Kathy A. Eastlev Cc: Tamra Allen Subject: Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Rezoning (ZDAA 7509 and PDAA 7510) Date: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:06:59 AM Kathy: EXHIBIT For the benefit of the public record on this application, please Include this communication as an Exhibit. Although the application before us is for a rezoning, and the proposed use of the property for a Ross Montessori School has no bearing on this application, my comments below nevertheless address this proposed use. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 22-32-124(1.5)(a) and (b), the siting and construction of a charter school on the subject property is subject to location and extent review by the Planning Commission, rather than being subject the zoning and use standards set forth in the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended ("ULUR"). This means that the proposed Ross Montessori School is exempt from the Preshana Farms Planned Unit Development Guide (Recorded at Reception No. 562197), and from the provisions of the Aspen Equestrian Estates Subdivision Final Plat ("Final Plat") (Recorded at Reception No. 564578). It Is Important to note, however, that should the request for rezoning from PUD to Rural be approved, and should the Ross Montessori plans fall through, then: (1) Any use permitted in the Rural Zone District (see ULUR Section 3-503, Use Table) will be allowed on the property, which use may or may not be subject to County review; and (2) Unless an application for Amended Final Plat is approved by the County, any use of the property other than for a school will require compliance with the plat notes and restrictions set forth on the Final Plat. Because the application makes much of the fact that the plan for the rezoned property is for a school, I want the record to be clear that use -specific rezoning is prohibited. Once the property is rezoned, there are many other uses of the property for which the property owner could seek approval. Thank you, Carey Carey Gagnon Assistant County Attorney Garfield County Attorney's Office 108 Eighth Street, Suite 219 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-9150 Fax: 970-384-5005 CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The information contained herein may include protected or otherwise privileged information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or other use of such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete the email without further disclosure. JIIJH1IHI.IIIII1lI1 11111111111111111 iiiii1I1! WOW 62/24/2000 01:39P B1174 P186 A ALSDORF 1 of 12'40.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO STATE OF COLORADO )ss County of Garfield EXHIBIT At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs on Pups/iny , the 72nd day of wh, A.D, 70 of) , there were present: J91m Martin , Commissioner, Chairman Larry McCown , Commissioner Walt Stowe , Commissioner pon Debit' , County Attorney wildredlA, lorf , Clerk of the Hoard pdward Green , County Administrator when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 900041 6 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT APPLICATION FOR THE ASPEN EQUESTRIAN ESTATES SUBDIVISION OF THE PRESHANA FARMS PUD AND LAND DEVELOPMENT. WHEREAS, the Board of County Conunissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, has received application from the Jay Weinberg of Aspen Equestrian Estates, LLC, for a subdivision and land development plan to allow for approval of a PUD Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, on the 9th day of February, 1998, conditionally approved a Planned Unit Development Amendment for the Preshana Farms P1JD per Resolution 98-11, which was signed on the 2" day of March, 1998; and WHEREAS, Aspen Equestrian Estates, LLC, is requesting an series of amendments to the Preshana Farms Planned Unit Development Resolution including alteration of the physical zone district boundaries and alteration of the zoning language text, attached hereto as exhibits A and B; and Page 1 of 4 1111101111111111111111111111111111111111110111111111 559691 02/24/2000 01:39P 61174 P187 N ALSDORF 2 of 12 R.0.09 D 0.00 t3ARFIELD COUNTY CO WHEREAS, to the extent that the original Planned Unit Development as approved by Resolution 98.11, is not modified or altered by the terms of this Resolution, the original resolution remains in effect; and WHEREAS, Garfield County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the 10th day of November, 1999, upon the question of whether the above described PUD Amendment should be granted or denied, at which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions concerning the approval or the denial of said PUD Amendment; and WHEREAS, The Garfield County Planning Commission reviewed the application and recommended conditional approval to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on the 3'h day of January, 2000, upon the question of whether the above described PUD Amendment should be granted or denied, at which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the approval or the denial of said PUD Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Board, on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determination of findings as listed below: 1. That the Garfield County Planning Commission is authorized by the provisions of Section 30-28-109 through 116, C.R.S. 1973, as amended, to provide recommendations concerning proposed amendments to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, and zone district maps, as amended. 2. That the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners is authorized by the provisions of Section 30-28-109 through 116, C.R.S. 1973, as amended, to consider approval, conditional approval, or denial of proposed amendments to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, and zone district maps, as amended. 3. That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the the Board of County Commissioners. 4. That an application for a zone district amendment was made according to the requirements of Section 4:00 and 10:00 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 5. 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 that hearing. 6. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed P.U.D. amendment is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. Page 2 of 4 1111111111111111101111111111111111110111(110111111 559691 02/24/2000 01:39P B1174 P198 N ALSDORF 3 of 12 R 0.00 0 0.00 GARP IELD COUNTY CO S 7. That the 1978 Garfield County Zoning Resolution, as amended, the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, the Garfield County road standards and policies, and all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations, resolutions, plans, and policies have been complied with. 8. The requested PUD amendment does not affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across the street from the PUD, or the public interest, and are not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. 9. Subject to the conditions set forth below, all uses by right, conditional uses, minimum lot areas, minimum lot coverage, minimum set -backs, maximum height of buildings and other use and occupancy restrictions applicable to this PUD are hereby approved by the Board of County Commissioners as set forth in the zone text attached hereto and incorporated herein as exhibit A.. 10. The PUD, subject to the conditions set forth herein, will he designed with the consideration of the natural environment of the site and surrounding area, and will not unreasonably destroy or displace wildlife, natural vegetation or unique features of the site, 11. Subject to the provisions of §4.08.06 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, the Board of County Commissioners find that no portion of the PUD conditionally approved herein may be occupied until appropriate final plats have been approved by this Board. 12. The intent of the original motion made on the 941 day of February, 1998, reflected in resolution 98-11, was to entirely delete certain uses from the proposed "Equestrian Center" zone district language. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that the Preshana Farms PUD Amendment is hereby APPROVED subject to compliance with all of the following specific conditions as listed below: 1. That the following uses be entirely removed from the proposed "Special Uses" in the Equestrian Center (E.C.) Zone District language (section C, 3, b, c, & d in the proposed zone district language): C, 3, b: Indoor and Outdoor Golf Driving Range C, 3, c: Golf Course with associated clubhouse including customary accessory uses including pro -shop, retail food and beverage service C, 3, d: Athletic Club with indoor and outdoor facilities Page 3 of 4 1 111111 11111 111111 1111 111111 IpI111111111111111 11111111 558691 02/24/2000 01:39P 61174 P189 11 ALSDORF 4 of.12 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO. • Dated this 22 day of _'eb = A.D. 2000 ATTEST • 941, of the ord GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF •COMMIS&sNERS, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLO': pp -.Upon^otfort duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the ;vro�Iowmg.vote: MARTTN , Aye COMMISSIONER LARRY L. MCCOWN ,Aye COMMISSIONER WALTER A. STOWS Aye STATE OF COLORADO )ss County of Garfield I, , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WTI'NESS WHEREOF, T have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this __- day of . A.D. 20 County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners Page 4 of 4 1111111111011)111111101111111111111111111111111111111 559891 02/24/2000 01:39P B1174 P190 N ALSDORF 5 of 12 N.0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO 40 bit A L ZONE DISTRICTS The provisions of these regulations shall prevail and govern the development of Preshana Farm PUD provided; however, where the provisions of Preshana Farm 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 Zoning Regulation of Garfield County, adopted January 2, 1970 and as amended, wherever these regulations are applicable to Preshana Farm PUD, ZONE DISTRICTS LISTED To carry out the purposes and provision of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, Garfield County, Colorado, as amended, the Preshana Farm Planned Unit Development Zone District is further divided into the following zone distrtct classifications: - O.S. E.C. - R20-S.F.R. - R10-S.F.R Open Space District Equestrian Center District R20 - Single Family Residential District R10 - Single Family Residential District S. O.S. OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 1. Uses By Right: a. Open Space and Greenbelt b. Park c. Water Storage Tank d. Pasturing of livestock including structures providing shelter for livestock and livestock feed when the footprint of the structure is 600 square feet or less. 4 • 1 111111 11111 IIIIIJ 1111 INUIT El Mit 111 11111 1111111 559691 02/24/2000 01:39P B1174 P191 11 AL.SDORF 6'of 12 'R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO tftior,414, tzvrer 'yf • • � fY rertit 2. Uses, Conditional NONE 3. Uses, Specia : a. Golf Course b. Golf ©riving Range 4. Minimum Lot Area 43,560 Square Feet (1 acre) ' S. • • rt • Maximum Lot Coverage a. Buildings: 5 per cent of net developable land b. •. All impervious materials: 10 per cent of net developable land c. And as further restricted by Supplemental Regulations. Maximum Floor Area NONE Minimum Setbacks a. Front Yard 50 feet b. Rear Yard 35 feet c, Side yard 35 feet Maximum Building Height 16 feet E.C. Equestrian Center DISTRICT 1. Uses By Right a. Riding Stable, Equestrian Arena and Tack Shop b. Agricultural, including farm, ranch, garden, greenhouse, plant nursery, orchard, and customary accessory uses including buildings for the enclosure of animals or property employed in any of the above uses and retail establishment for the sale of goods processed from raw materials produced on the lot. c. Employee Housing units either attached or detached, d. Veterinary Clinic e. Park and open Space f. Public Equestrian Event attended by Tess than 300 people . -egg•:' 1 111110 Hill 1111111111111111111111111l11111111111111111 559591 02/24/2000 01:39P 01174 P192 H ALSDORF .7 of 12 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO 2.. Uses, Conditional: NONE 3. Uses, Special: a. Nome Occupation Ati - . , ,.-+ .. F _ . .'l .1.'. e. Miniature Gott' f. Indoor Commercial Recreation. 4. Minimum Lot Area 43,560 Square Feet ( 1 acre ) 5. Maximum Lot Coverage 30 percent 6. Minimum Setback a. Front Yard 35 feet b. Rear Yard 25 feet c. Side Yard 25 feet • 7. Maximum Building Height 25 feet, Except that a water storage tank or a structure enclosing such tank may be 32 feet to the highest ridgeline of the structure. D. R20/S.F.R. R20/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 1. Uses By Right a. Single family and customary accessory uses including building far shelter or enclosure of animals or property accessory to use of the lot for residential purposes and fences, hedges, gardens, walls and similar landscape features. b. Park and Open Space 1 1 1 i lb 1 1 11111110111 IRI 11111111111111111111101 Hill lit11111 859691 02/24/2000 01:30P B11T4 P193 11 ALSD01P 8 of 12 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARP/BLD COUNTY CO 2. Uses, Conditional NONE. 3. Uses, Special: a. Day Nursery (maximum of 6 nonresident children) b. Home Occupation 4. Minimum Lot Area 20,000 square feet 5. Maximum Lot Coverage 40 percent 6. Minimum Setbacks Front Yard: 25 feet Rear Yard: 25 feet except as depicted on the final plat (Note: Lots 11,12 & 13 to have 60 foot rear yard setback) Side Yard: 20 feet 7. Maximum Building Height 25 feet 8. Maximum Floor Area 0.40/1.0 and as further provided under Supplemental Regulations 9. Minimum Off -Street Parking ' Parking Spaces 6 D. R10/S.F.R. R10/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 1. Uses By Right: a. Single family and customary accessory uses including building for shelter or enclosure of animals or property accessory to use of the lot for residential purposes and fences, hedges, gardens, walls and similar landscape features. b. Park and Open Space 2. Uses, Conditional NONE 3. Uses, Special: a. Day Nursery (maximum of 4 nonresident children) b. Home Occupation if 1 I11I11111111111111111all 559891 92/24/2000 01:39P 81174 P194 M ALSDORF .9 of 12 R 0.00 D 0.00 GRRFIELD COUNYY CO • 4. Minimum Lot Area 10,000 square feet 5. Maximum Lot Coverage 40 percent MOW •fe,tiY, 6. Minimum Setbacks Front Yard 25 feet Rear Yard: 25 feet except as shown on final plat (Note: Lots 16 -19 to have 50 foot rear yard setback) Side Yard 15 feet 7. Maximum Building Height 25 feet 8. Maximum Floor Area 0.4011.0 and as further provided under Supplemental Regulations 9. Minimum Of Street Parking Parking Spaces 6 11. DESIGN STANDARDS A. SIGNS All signs shall be subject to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution as amended except as listed belowr. 1. Open Space District One subdivision identification sign not to exceed 100 square feet. 2. RI0 — Single Farniiy Residential District One subdivision identification sign not to exceed 50 square feet. One real estate sign not to exceed 50 square feet • B. FENCES All fences shall be subject to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution as amended except as listed beiow /0 11111111111101111II111111111111111111111111III1III IIII � y I559691 02/24/2000 02:39P 61174 P195 M ALSDORF :h�,�. ,..w.,...::a,� . 10' of 11t R 000 5 0.00 GMPIELD COUNTY C9 ,: , .� ' 1 1 1 1 2. Fences within the Residential Districts shall not exceed 48" when located '• ..,• '.1' SY' - .4f`f tiYfVl;L'.,w .tiUMYLrc,t 1. Fences within the Open Space District shall observe the following criteria except for areas requiring protection from wildlife: a) Maximum height Wire Fence or solid fence or wall - 44 inches Rail Fence - 54 inches b) Wire strand fences shall have a minimum of 12 inches between the top two wire strands. d) Fences higher than 54" designed to exclude deer and elk from gardens, landscaped areas or storage areas shall meet the required building setbacks of the district. within the Front Yard Setback 1 C. LIGHTING Ail site lighting shall be downward directed to avoid projection of the light beyond the boundaries of the lot. The luminar light source shall be shielded to minimize glare when observed from adjacent lots. III. VARIANCE FROM SUBDMSION REGULATIONS Except as defined below, all provisions of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations shall be applicable to the Preshana Farm PUD. A. STREET DESIGN STANDARDS 1 1. Design Standards: Standard street design shall be as .identified in the attached chart titled Preshana Farm - Road Desion Standards. 2. Cul-de-sac Length: Cul-de-sacs in excess of 600 feet shall observe the following design standards: 1 a. Minimum Right -of -Way Radius 'l!5 feet b. Minimum Driving Surface, Outside Radius 74 feet 11. of 12 R 0.08 D 0.00 MIDFIELD COUNTY CO pRE %NA FARM PUD pad Design Standards 7128197 111 OAD NAME 1 Primary Access !Secondary Access NOTES: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R.O.W. LANE SHOULDER DITCH WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH All widths & radii are in feet 70 12 70 11 MINIMUM MAXIMUM C. LINE GRADE RADIUS 4 10' min. . 100 6% 4 10' min. 100 6% CUL-DE-SAC RADIUS R.O.W. 1. M mad surfaces are a minimum of chip & seal. 2. AR roads are two lanes in width. 3. Shoulders are gravel or a stablizsd structural section as approved by the County Road Supervisor that allows grass to grow in the shoulder area. 4. Curb and gutter are not required on any road in the PUD. 5. Cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum paved, outside turning radius of 70 feet 75 75 /7 zgeLsolEDISCLAUR ASPEN EQUESTRIAN ESTATES SUBDIVISION P.U.D. SITUATED WWHIN SECTION 31. TOWNSHIP 7 S.. RANGE 81 W, OF THE 6TH COUNTY OF GARFIELD. STATE OF' COLORADO ZONE DISTRICTS AS DESIGNATED BY THE PRESHANA FARM P.U.D. CIPAPEC SCAM Yis • OS S. OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R20/S.F.R. DISTRICT R10/S.F.R. DISTRICT OPEN SPACE DISTRICT EQUESTRIAN CENTER DISTRICT R1O/S.F.R. DISTRICT 0j34v 1/45Pact HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING. INC. COMM= bWI ISO warms= EdeFe• aLLIMOD VIDNIk LINN* Illka ma) 904114 Allabg"igeiTirden: 1111 111 1IIiiJllhII 11111 ill 1111 1111 11111 1111111 MCINITy MAP ailmaidem&— TGMALLOY CONSULTING, LLC July 31, 2013 EXHIBIT n LAND USE PLANNING * SITE DESIGN • NATURAL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS • PUBLIC PROCESS Kathy Eastley, Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Supplemental Information for August 14, 2013 Planning Commission Hearing Re: Preshana Farm PUD Amendment & Rezoning Application Dear Kathy: As you know, on June 12th the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on this application to August 14th to allow staff and the applicant time to address issues raised by the Nanning Commission. One of these issues related to the effect of pending changes to the use table being contemplated in the land use code revision, which was nearing completion at the time of the June hearing. The Planning Commission also noted the potential Toss of open space along the Highway 82 side of the property associated with the proposed PUD amendment. The purpose of this letter is to provide the Staff and members of the Planning Commission additional information regarding these issues and a summary of events that have occurred since the June 12th hearing. SUMMARY OF EVENTS SINCE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING (JUNE 12m) On July 1st a public hearing for this application, which had been schedule on the BOCC agenda, was withdrawn due the lack of a recommendation from the Planning Commission. On July 2"a representatives for the Applicants met with members of the Community Development Department and County Attorney's Office to discuss the issues raised during the June 12th Planning Commission hearing. On July 15th the Board of County Commissioners approved the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code (LU DC), which includes the changes to the use tables mentioned during the June 12th Planning Commission hearing. The Applicant's representatives also met with members of the Aspen Equestrian Estates Homeowner's Association Board of Directors on July 17th to discuss the project and the comments generated during the Planning Commission hearing. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS After careful consideration of the comments made by members of the Planning Commission during the June 12th hearing, discussions with the Community Development Department and County Attorney's Office staff, review of the recently -adopted LU DC, and meeting with the 402 PARK DRIVE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS • COLORADO • 81601 (P) 970.945.0832 • (F) 970.945.0833 •E-MAIL: TGMALLOY@SOPRIS.NET Ross Montessori School/Supplemental Information for 8.14.13 P&Z Hearing July 31, 2013 2 Aspen Equestrian Estates HOA, we remain confident that the request to remove the Equestrian Lot of the Aspen Equestrian Estates from the Preshana Farm PUD and rezone the property to Rural is appropriate and supported by the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution (ULUR), the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030, and the recently adopted LUDC. We recognize that as an application in the pipeline at the time the LUDC was adopted, our application is being reviewed under the ULUR of 2008, as amended. However, since future use of the property will be governed by the new LUDC, it's appropriate and necessary to consider the use table contained in the new code (Table 3-403) when considering the requested rezoning. For this reason, wherever compatibility with the Use Table or other regulations of the County code is discussed in this letter we are referring to the recently -adopted LUDC, unless otherwise specified. To facilitate comparison of the allowed uses under the existing PUD zoning and the proposed Rural zoning we have prepared a table based on the column for the Rural zone district in Table 3-403 of the LUDC (see Exhibit i). In order to understand the true implications of the Rural zone district on the subject property it's important to consider the practical limitations of the subject property and the context of the surrounding area. In addition to the uses actually identified as prohibited, several of the uses listed on Table 3-403 for the Rural zone district could be described as prohibited for practical reasons, or highly unlikely due to the County's regulatory standards and processes. The table in Exhibit 1 identifies those uses which, while listed as "permitted by right" in Table 3-403, are either impractical or highly unlikely due to physical limitations of the subject property or some other environmental condition (highlighted in yellow on Exhibit t). The following is a list of these uses and the rationale for this status: • Forestry: Economically impractical given property acreage and land cost, no trees; • Employee Housing Facility, Small: Primarily associated with gas well operations, which are highly unlikely in this area due to distance from the shale formation, there is almost no well permitting or drilling in the surrounding area; • Ultralight Operation: Site too small, use regulated by FAA, trees on adjacent properties potentially obstruct operations; • Hydraulic Fracturing, Remote Surface Facility: Distance from shale formation; • Injection Well, Piped: Distance from shale formation; • Oil and gas drilling and production: Distance from shale formation; • Water Reservoir: Property topographically unsuited for this use. What's left are uses that fall into two categories, those which are permitted by right and could potentially be developed or those uses which are subject to County review either due to their status as a Major Impact (M), Limited Impact (L), or Administrative Review (A) use, or because their development would most likely require subdivision of the property. The remaining permitted -by -right uses that could potentially be developed are listed below. The trailing (*) indicates those uses which are also allowed under the current PUD zoning. 402 PARK DRIVE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS • COLORADO .81 601 (P) 970.945.0832 • (F) 970.945.0833 *E-MAIL: TGMALLOY@SOPRIS.NET Ross Montessori School/Supplemental Information for 8.14.13 P&Z Hearing July 31,2013 3 Remaining Permitted Uses • Agriculture* • Agricultural accessory structures* • Agriculture product processing, storage & distribution (for products produced on site)* • Animal sanctuary • Riding stable* • Veterinary clinic* • Single-family dwelling unit (limited to 1 principal dwelling, 1 accessory w/o subdivision)* • Home office/business (limited to 1 w/o subdivision)* • Foster home (limited to 1 w/o subdivision) • Family child care home (limited to 1 w/o subdivision) • Park* • Trail, trailhead, road • Nursery/Greenhouse* • Distribution lines • Solar energy system, accessory • Substation, neighborhood • Utility distribution facility • Accessory buildings • Fence, hedge or wall* Uses Subject to County Land Use Review The uses listed as Major Impact (M), Limited Impact (L) or Administrative Review (A) on Exhibit 1 are those which require the commensurate land use review by the County before they can be developed. These are uses that are deemed to have increased potential for impacts to the environment, the surrounding neighborhood, or both, and for which greater scrutiny is required. These reviews all require public notice prior to approval and are subject to review under the standards in Article 7 of the LUDC. The standards contained in Article 7 address a broad range of issues including general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, compatibility with adjacent land uses, adequacy of utilities and services, vehicular access, resource protection, traffic impacts, and surface water protection, among many others. Major Impact reviews require a hearing before both the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners with approval authority residing with the BOCC. Major Impact reviews are designed to provide the greatest level of attention and site-specific control. Limited Impact reviews require approval by the Board of County Commissioners after a noticed public hearing. Administrative reviews are conducted by the Community Development Department Director (Director) after mailed notice has been provided to surrounding property owners. Administrative reviews can also be elevated for consideration and decision by the BOCC in two ways. The first is that the Director can elect to defer the application to BOCC and the second is that an adjacent property owner, or other affected party, can request that an application be sent up to the BOCC. The BOCC considers this request and approves or denies the request by a 402 PARK DRIVE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS • COLORADO •81 601 (P) 970.945.0832 • (F) 970.945.0833 *E-MAIL: TGMALLOY@SOPRIS.NET Ross Montessori School/Supplemental Information for 8.14.13 P&Z Hearing Jury 31, 2013 4 majority vote. According to a member of the Community Development Department staff, no request to elevate an Administrative Review application to the BOCC has ever been refused. Given the standards with which these uses must comply under the LDDC, and the fact that the adjacent land owners and surrounding neighborhood are provided an opportunity to comment on specific proposals/applications, it's unlikely that any inappropriate use would be approved for the subject property. A thorough review of the Use Table for the Rural zone district reveals that the proposed rezoning offers a reasonable palette of uses for the subject property given existing constraints and the regulations and review procedures in place in the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code. We believe the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 and the criteria for rezoning described in Section 4-112(C) of the Garfield County Land Use Resolution, as amended. We refer you to pages 10 through 15 of our original application fora full discussion regarding compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning criteria. We would note that although we believe we have demonstrated that the Rural zone district is appropriate for the subject property and complies with the required criteria in the ULUR, the Aspen Equestrian Estates HOA has provided a letter which includes a request that certain uses be limited through a covenant that would be executed and recorded by the current property owner (see Exhibit 2). We have no objection to this request. Exhibit 1 shows the uses which the AEE HOA have requested be limited by covenant in red text for convenience. In several cases, the uses they request be limited by covenant overlap with uses we have identified as unlikely to be developed for practical reasons. Potential Loss of Open Space The staff and Planning Commission have noted that removing the existing PUD zoning will eliminate the existing open space zone district, which encompasses the northern one third of the subject property. While it has been clarified that the 5.23 -acre open space district on the subject property is not part of the required open space for the Aspen Equestrian Estates PUD, we acknowledge that this open space provides an important buffer between Highway 82 and the remainder of the subject property. We also believe that most redevelopment scenarios for the subject property will result in a similar amount and configuration of either open space or outdoor uses, which would achieve a similar purpose, even under the proposed Rural zoning. One reason for this is that for all uses, other than those identified as permitted by right (P) in the Use Table (Table 3-403) of the LUDC, development of the property will require County review and approval subject to all applicable requirements and use -specific standards in Article 7 of the LUDC. The County has substantial leverage through its development review process to require an appropriate open space buffer along Highway 82 and there are a number of 402 PARK DRIVE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS • COLORADO • 81601 (P) 970.945.0832 • (F) 970.945.0833 •E-MAIL: TGMALLOY@SOPRIS.NET Ross Montessori School/Supplemental Information for 8.14.13 P&Z Hearing July 31, 2013 5 standards in Article 7 that would support such a requirement including compatibility (7-1102), environmental quality (7-205), and compatible design (7-3o1), among others. Further, any use developed as part of a subdivision, even uses permitted by right, would be subject to County scrutiny through the subdivision review process. This would include the development of more than one single-family dwelling unit (principal dwelling). Therefore, the only scenario under which the County would have no opportunity to require the creation of open space would be the development of uses that are permitted by right in the Rural zone district and where no subdivision is involved. However, if we look at the non-utility uses permitted by right in the Rural zone district (see list on page 3 for uses not eliminated for practical reasons), most of them would either result in substantial open space by their very nature (agriculture, animal sanctuary, park, traiihead, and one single-family dwelling with related accessory uses) or they would greatly benefit by preserving an open space buffer along Highway 82. Examples of these would include; riding stables (keeping horses away from highway noise while riding and training is preferred); Point of production sale of agricultural goods (a component of a larger on-site agricultural use better suited away from highway noise); and nursery/greenhouse (buffer would reduce impact of highway dust and deicing chemicals on plants). It simply makes good sense, from a development standpoint, to retain a buffer along Highway 82 for most of the common uses permitted by right in the Rural zone district. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this supplemental information and we look forward to discussing these issues and our application for rezoning and PUD amendment with the Planning Commission on August i4tt, Sincerely, 0/4 Tim Malloy Principal, TG Malloy Consulting LLC Attachments 402 PARK DRIVE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS • COLORADO • 81 601 (P) 970.945.0832 • (F) 970.945.0833 *E-MAIL: TGMALLOY@SOPRrs.NET Exhibit 1 Comparison of Uses for Rural Zone Distric and Existing PUD Zoning Use Category 1 Use Type Existing PUD LDDC Notes AGRICULTURAL AND ANIMAL -RELATED USES General Agriculture P P Building or Structure Necessary to Agricultural Operations, Accessory P P Forestry P Products Processing, Storaje, Distribution, Off -Site A At Point of Production P P Animals and Related Services Animal Sanctuary P Animal Processing M Feedlot, Commercial M Kennel, Small L Kennel, Large M Riding Stable P P Veterinary Clinic P A RESIDENTIAL USES Household Living Dwelling, Single -Unit per legal lot) P P Dwelling, 2 -Unit A Dwelling, Multi -Unit 1 Dwelling Unit, Accessory A Manufactured Home Park M Office Home Office/Business 5 P Referred to as "Horne Occupation" in PUD Plan. Group Living Foster Home P Group Home Facilities L Temporary Employee Housing Facility, Major M Employee Housing Facility, Minor A Employee Housing Facility, Small P PUD zoning allows permanent employee dwelling units PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL USES Assembly Community Meeting Facility A i Place of Worship A Public Gathering A Cultural Library A Museum A Day Care Adult Day Care A Child Care Center A Family Child Care Home P Parks and Open Space Cemetery A Park P P Community Service Facility Corrections Facility M Educational Facility 1 Emergency Shelter L Fire Station A Hospital M Public Building A Transportation Access Route A Aircraft Landing Strip L Aircraft, UI_tralight Operation P Airport M Heliport M Helistop M Mass Transit Facility M Park and Ride Facility L Trail, Trailhead, Road P COMMERCIAL USES Office Broadcasting Studio L _ Professional Office L Professional Office, Temporary _ A Lrnited to 1 year. Retal!/Wholesale Bakery Convenience Store L Nursery/Greenhouse P P Optional Premises Cultivation Operation Retail, General A Retail, Equipment, Machinery, Lumber Yards Retail, Vehicle and Equipment Sales M Bulk Sales of LPG and CNG Recreation and Entertainment Golf Course/Driving Range S A PUD zoning also allows mini golf facility. Theater, Indoor Motor Sports Center - M Recreation, Indoor 5 L Permitted (P) Uses Unlikely for Practical Reasons Uses AEE HOA Requested be Resticted by Covenant Recreation, Outdoor L Shooting Gallery/Range L Services Crematorium M Eating or Drinking Establishment L General Service Establishment L Laundromat A Laundry or Dry -Cleaning Plant _— Mortuary M Vehicles and Equipment Car Wash M Parking Lot or Parking Garage L Repair, Body /Paint, or Upholstery Shop A Visitor Accommodation Campground/ RV Park - M Lodging Facilities L , INDUSTRIAL USES Extraction I Compressor/Pipeline Pump Station (Not Subject to Article 9) L Compressor Booster A Associated with oil and gas drilling. Extraction, Gravel M Extraction, Mining and Other M Hydraulic Fracturing, Remote Surface Facility P Injection Well, Piped P Injection Well, Small A Up to 5,000 gallons. Injection Well, Large L 5,000 gallons or more. Oil and Gas Drilling and Production P Service Contractor's Yard, Small A Contractor's Yard, Large M Material Handling L _ Processing L Processing, Accessory (Batch Plant) - L Processing, Temporary A Vehicles, Machinery, and Heavy Equipment M Vehicle Safety Area A Fabrication Assembly of Structures L Cabinet Making, Woodworking, Metalworking, Glazing, Machining, Welding A Equipment, Small Appliances L Goods Processed From Natural Resources M Warehouse and Freight Movement Storage L Storage, Mini L Storage, Cold Storage Plants Storage, Hazardous Materials M Warehouse and Distribution Center M Waste and Salvage Mineral Waste Disposal Areas L Recycling Collection Center L Recycling Processing Facility M Salvage Yard M Sewage Treatment Facility L _ Solid Waste Disposal Site and Facility M Solid Waste Transfer Facility M Water Impoundment L UTILITIES Electric Power Generation Facility, Small L _ Electric Power Generation Facility, Large L Lines, Distribution P Lines, Transmission L Pipeline A Solar Energy System, Accessory P Solar Energy System, Small A Solar Energy System, Large M Substation, Neighborhood P Substation, Utility L Telecommunication Facility L Utility Distribution Facility P Water Reservoir P Water Tank or Treatment Facility P L Wind Energy System, Commercial M. Wind Energy System, Small L ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES Building or Structure, Accessory P Fence, Hedge or Wail P P Permitted (P) Uses Unlikely for Practical Reasons Uses AEE HOA Requested be Resticted by Covenant Exhibit 2 DRAFT 07/24/13 ASPEN EQUESTRIAN ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. Garfield County Planning Commission c/o Tamara Allen Via e-mail at Tallen@gaifield-county.com Re: Aspen Equestrian Estates Re -zoning Ladies and Gentlemen, The Aspen Equestrian Estates Homeowners Association, Inc, ("Association") is writing to re- state its support for the application of Ross Montessori School ("RMS") and Trend Investments, LLC to re -zone the so-called "Equestrian Lot," which is currently a part of the Aspen Equestrian Estates PUD, to Rural ("R"). Although there are a few uses that should not be allowed due to the character of the neighborhood, the R Zone District, with its low-density and low -intensity uses, seems to be very appropriate as an alternative to PUD. We note that if the Equestrian Lot was not part of the PUD, it would be zoned R. We request that the following uses be prohibited either as conditions of re -zoning approval or pursuant to a covenant to be executed and recorded by the current owner of the property: 1. Temporary residential uses; 2, Otherwise permitted extraction uses, and 3. Otherwise permitted utility facilities. 4. Restriction of modular facilities located within the "Equestrian Lot" without prior written approval of the Association In our previous letter supporting the re -zoning and removal of the Equestrian Lot from the PUD, we requested that the re -zoning and removal be contingent upon acquisition of the Equestrian Lot by RMS. We understand that the Assistant County Attorney is of the opinion that a re -zoning cannot legally he contingent upon such acquisition. We do not agree with that opinion. We believe that the I3OCC has the authority to impose such a condition for the benefit of the • Association and the owners that we represent: We have reviewed an e-mail from Mr;Myler on behalf of RMS dated July 9, 2013. We agree with and support his analysis. Even though the Association and owners believe that the R Zone District is appropriate in this case, because the Equestrian Lot is eurrently for sale, we would prefer that the re -zoning be contingent upon a sale to a buyer with whom we are familiar in order to minimize unintended consequences. July 29, 2013 Page 2 Very truly yours, Aspen F uestrian Estates Homeowners Association Air +• I A.r . Al Bv.