Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 BOCC Staff Report 10.07.2013Board of County`Commissioners — Public Hearing Exhibits October 7, 2013 Preshana Farms RUD mendment and Rezoning Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Public Notice docu -nts — publication and r- ailing receipts B Garfield County Unifi:. Land Use Resol ton of 2008, as amended C Garfield County Compre • ensive Plan 2e 0, as amended D Application E Staff Report F Staff Presentation G Revised Adjacent Property 0 - list submitted May 1, 2013 H Resolution 89-121 Preshana r arms 'UD approval I Email dated April 29, 2013 • om Jan: Buck & John Leybourne, Town of Carbondale J Email dated May 6, 2013 om Mike P - hm, Road & Bridge K Letter dated May 9, 20 from Chris Ha -, Mountain Cross Engineering L Email dated May 15, 013 from Bill Gave e, Carbondale Fire Protection District M Email dated May 2 : , 2013 from Carey Gagn i n, Assistant County Attorney N Resolution 2000- • Preshana Farms PUD Am-ndment 0 P Q (\1 14/ k)11) 4e(Al {WA k2) REQUEST Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Rezoning Board of County Commissioners — October 7, 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) Zone District Amendment — Preshana Farms PUD Equestrian Center/Open Space District to `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) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Residential Medium High with overlay of Village Center I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION Trend Investments, LLC requests a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to remove the platted Equestrian Lot, located within the Equestrian Center/Open Space zone districts (as shown below), from the PUD and to rezone the parcel 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 Pfan 1 It /MM /ten MI/M Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Rezoning Board of County Commissioners — October 7, 2013 KE The application states that the amendment is requested so that the site will be used for a school. The Ross Montessori School obtained a Location and Extent review for a charter school to be located on this site, however a request for rezoning does not guarantee that a school will be located on this site. The request to amend the PUD and rezone the parcel as Rural must be reviewed based upon the approval criteria contained in the ULUR including the uses and dimensional standards within the Rural Zone District. 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 submittal documentation 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 the PUD is an attachment to Resolution 2000-30 while the PUD Plan, shown below, is an attachment to Resolution 2000-016. 36" roof overhangs was approved ASPEN EQUESTCCTR�IAN ETATES SUBDIVISION P.U.D. SITUATED WITHIN COUNTY Od TOWNSHIP 7 3. RANGE 87 W., or THE OTH ZONE DISTRICTS AS DESIGNATED SY THE PRESHANA FARM P.U.D. OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R20 S,F.R, DISTRICT 1110/S.F.R. Dl TRICT OPEN SPACE DISTRICT PI% 7 7-‘191- *641414 lot 914-LIPIA EQUESTRIAN CENTER DISTRICT RIO S.F.R. DISTRICT Op$ HIGH COUNTRY ENOG.INC. 4M1 (P IA DlSTRlCT 1atmirPo' 2 Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Rezoning Board of County Commissioners — October 7, 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 lots 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. On October 24, 2012 the Planning Commission unanimously approved a Location and Extent application for the Ross Montessori School, memorialized by Resolution PC -2012-06 (included in the submittal documentation as Exhibit 3). This review process is the sole land use change permit necessary from the County for the charter school use to occur at this location. 3 11. LOCATION, ZONING AND ADJACENT USES Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Rezoning Board of County Commissioners — October 7, 2013 KE Ranch aS A.ort Fork The Preshana Farms PUD is located adjacent to the south side of Highway 82 and the west side of County Road 100, south and west of Catherine Store and east of the Ranch at Roaring Fork. This crossroads area is comprised of neighborhood commercial activities related to Catherine Store and residential subdivisions such as Blue Creek Ranch, St. Finnbar, TCI Lane Ranch and Ranch at Roaring Fork, see map left. Zoning in the immediate area is predominantly Planned Unit Development (PUD), including Blue Creek Ranch and TCI Lane Ranch to the east, and Ranch at Roaring Fork to the west. Some Rural zoning exists on the north side of SH 82 and south of the PUD, Residential Urban and Commercial Limited zoning is also located in the vicinity. I11. 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 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. Applicable code sections include §6-202, PUD Approval Standards, and §4-112(C), Rezoning Criteria. The Director of Community Development has classified this request as a 'Substantial Modification' to the PUD, a process that requires a new application and public hearings with the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. However it is important to note that subject request only affects the 15.23 -acre Equestrian Center/Open Space parcel as described in the PUD Guide for Preshana Farms. The remainder of the PUD is not proposed to be modified in any way. The PUD and rezoning criteria 4 Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Rezoning Board of County Commissioners — October 7, 2013 KE below, are applicable only to the Equestrian Parcel contained within the existing PUD and subdivision. Staff has listed the code standards below in bold, with 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(0, 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 PUD to the surrounding area due to the open space district and agricultural uses of the site which currently provide 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 Impacts. 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 when viewed 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 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. 5 Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Rezoning Board of County Commissioners— October 7, 2013 KE 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 to remain as 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 with the exception of 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 will be necessary to document the non -conformity in the event that the request is approved. This documentation would allow the units to continue with a status of legal, non -conforming employee units. 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. 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. 6 Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Rezoning Board of County Commissioners — October 7, 2013 KE Staff Comments: The applicant has provided a revised PUD Plan and PUD Guide that has removed reference to the Equestrian parcel and zone district. If the request is approved these documents would be recorded as an exhibit to the Resolution. 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 approximately 175' away as well as 250' to the south at St. Finnbar Ranch — the remaining area is PUD zoning. Approval of the request would return the Lot to the underlying zone district with the site subject to the uses and standards in Garfield County regulations. 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 residential area that includes Ranch at Roaring Fork, Blue Creek Ranch and St. Finnbar. The Applicant has not demonstrated that the area has changed or is changing to such a degree that new use or density should be encouraged in the area. The Aspen Equestrian Estates Homeowner's Association (AEEHOA) has determined that several of the uses by right permitted in the Rural zone are not appropriate for this location. Though AEEHOA states that they are in support of the application for Ross Montessori School they are specifically requesting that specific Rural uses not be permitted at this site — included in Exhibit O. 3. The proposed rezoning addresses a demonstrated community need with respect to facilities, services, or housing. 7 Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Rezoning Board of County Commissioners — October 7, 2013 KE Staff Comments: The Applicant has not demonstrated that the uses permitted in the Rural zone district will address a demonstrated community need. 4. The proposed rezoning is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and in compliance with any applicable Intergovernmental Agreement. Staff Comments: The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation for this site is Residential Medium High, and the general area is subject to an overlay of "Village Center". The Rural Zone District is listed as a compatible zone district for Village Center but the Residential Medium High density supports more density consistent with the suburban character of the existing community. 5. The proposed rezoning addresses errors in the original zone district map. Staff Comments: Not 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 was not 'required' by the original approval as the PUD exceeded the minimum 25% open space. The development has been subject to an historical progression of reducing the open space represented for the development as originally approved. The original approvals included in excess of 60% of the site as open space. 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 simply due to a reduction in the overall size of the PUD. 2. The rezoning of the parcel to Rural will create non -conforming uses on the site with regard to the employee units that were a part of the Preshana PUD approval. These employee units are 8 Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Rezoning Board of County Commissioners— October 7, 2013 KE not permitted by -right in the Rural zone district which only permit by -right one single family home per parcel. Should the rezoning be approved the existing employee units must be documented —first, to determine the existence of the units which could not be confirmed by the Applicant; and second, to confirm their status as legal non -conforming units subject to Article 10 of the land use code. 3. The removal of the Equestrian Lot from the PUD and rezoning to Rural is required to meet the review criteria of both the Zone District Amendment and PUD Amendment sections of the land use code. Consideration of potential uses that may occur on the site must remain general in nature as there is no guarantee that a specific use will occur on the site. The premise of a specific use that may or may not occur could result in unintended consequences including the creation and on-going use of non -conforming uses within the Rural zone, as well as potential incompatible uses with the adjacent community. The removal of the visual buffer along Highway 82 and CR 100 will negatively impact the character of the community. 4. The site is platted as the Aspen Equestrian Estates Subdivision Final Plat which designates the 15.2 -acre subject property as "Equestrian Center/Open Space District" with 5.2 -acres occurring within the as Open Space District. Should the request be approved, planning staff has determined that a plat amendment to remove this zone district designation from the plat is necessary as any proposed use or structure on the parcel would have to comply plat restrictions currently in place. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission considered the PUD Amendment and Rezoning request at Public Hearings conducted on June 12, 2013 and August 14, 2013. Consideration and deliberation of the request focused on the review criteria for a rezoning for which the following comments were provided by the four (4) voting members: 1. The criteria that the rezoning would result in a 'logical and orderly development pattern' and would not constitute 'spot zoning' elicited the following comments: • That the general area is suburban in nature and therefore Rural is not an appropriate zone district for the parcel. • Each voting member agreed that this request constitutes spot zoning due to the predominance of PUD zoning in the immediate vicinity of the proposal and the fact that Rural zoning is 175' away across Highway 82 and 250' away to St. Finnbar Ranch. Members agreed that this criteria was not met. 2. The second review item, that the 'area has changed or is changing to the degree that it would be in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area' resulted in comments: • The suburban character and PUD zoning has been well established in the area and there has been no change in the area to support the Rural zoning. Members agreed that this criteria was not met. 9 Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Rezoning Board of County Commissioners —October 7, 2013 KE 3. The rezoning is required to address a 'demonstrated community need' with respect to facilities, service or housing however the Planning Commission could not determine that the uses permitted within the Rural zone district addressed a community need at this site. 4. General conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and compliance with Intergovernmental Agreements was not demonstrated and specific comments included statements from Commissioners that zoning the site to Rural was not in conformance with the Future land Use Map and other components of the Comprehensive Plan. Members agreed that this criteria was not met. Consideration of the PUD Amendment request, which requires compliance with approval criteria of the zone change process, was determined as inappropriate due to non-compliance with the required approval criteria related to the zone change. There appeared to be no need to consider removal of the site from the PUD if it was not appropriate to rezone the parcel to Rural. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend denial of the Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Zone District Amendment. VII. PLANNING COMMISSION SUGGESTED FINDINGS The Planning Commission unanimously recommends denial of the PUD Amendment and Zone District Amendment with the following findings: 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 of the Preshana Farms PUD and Zone District Amendment for the PUD Equestrian Center and Open Space District to "Rural" is not in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application has not met the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended, specifically related to the approval criteria for a Zone District Amendment and PUD Amendment as discussed above. 5. That the application has not met the requirements of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030, as amended. VIII. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER DELIBERATION 10 m ei el 0 m CO 01 CO ut m m N N a CO .-i a ID el el N Cr) N CO N N 0 N 0 N N lD tD 0 V' N ei In m 0 lD r4 lD 00 ED 1D N w 0 l0 ID 0 0 el m lD et tD 1D ED el m ri ED el N 0 el 0 el N N N c-1 N el m el el el 00 m CO CO CO CO co N co co al 01 lD N 00 m 00 CO CO O O 0 0 0 0 O O ,� Z,0_,000 u�uGuuuu5uu<4 GVWuuw y < < 0 J 3 J J J J va�a Z W Inj°soO-0o <zOo o OH 00 °OOZ OZZD:ZZZOOpZZZi 3mFmOm>m go ueR moJid aI- coal K s 1WK K Z= u K C Z Z U D. = WgUW326515585`1.12=53w(-5' ei 0 o 00 O 00 N W 0 00 Z C ri w a O 00 LU 01-1 G W N O Z O a 7 yt > W Z °` 5 I -IQ <'" <0 2 0 2 <x O<oG o< Ou< ZQ < O zi O .i U 5} rcai W O m CO j 2 In V t W MEI N a.m. Z H J N 7 "' h N `_ °o N O N umi Z aO-oxG�71 >xaaxx�gxoxXw N m x O O> H O O 00 O a O o m m .-I o m N N L4 CO m T m m m ei O m m m 0 00 O 01 O e} N In ri O N N O O o rn O co 0 0 N a (0 V D. 0 m N N D. 0 D. d N el S N p D. ry c Y j w W J > 5 z U ' cS m W Y J Z J W Q C Q Z J _ Z 0 L d VQ Vf W V)J eb Q CZ ta K 3 w a m N w zp < < m L z< W Z a a 0wE w z a7. s LT. V j~ S a z a Z a0' z O O 1- IC Q m V In O Z O> Lo < J w O s= Z W m D. W Q Z N J ~ m W Ld,= 11 l7 wo 'n 0 <W C O O Z O O 2 w w S S k z O 0 m,° F 3 3 3 3 3` 0 0 CO a m 01 01 N .-I N v1 1.0 0 04 N 04 a N (0 el N 0 0 ED lD lD O N rl 0 N N el ED N 00 00 N tD N 01 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N .i N N Nel ID ED t.13 el N el 0 0 0 el 0 .-1 Hr -I 0 0 el 0 0ED 0 01.13 0 0 0 0 0 00000020$$0 $00 0 0 $0 0 0 ll000rap l pt,,,, R000ption Na, � oeloak l3 ,.,M,_,^;S,��Q is b...� MILOasp ALSDORW, RECORDER OARpi@t.p COUte7Y, COLORADO STATE OF COLORADO so County of Garfield r•. i� bi!u!? ' ' ^�7 ' S• At a Pop] eC eating of the Board of County e, Commiesionere for Garfield County, Colorado, held at the Commissioners, Meeting Room at the Garfield County Courthouse in Glenwood Springs on the,_gl;n _ day of .D. 19JIL , there were presents n m, EtIlie• •A a j7 eh1oy. , r UMW JAuakmy) Atiapose , Do Dn oFor� , Mlldrad Alsdorf �y{4k �pasul ona_y o - , Commissioner Chairman Commis a ioner Commissioner County Attorney Clerk of the Board County Administrator fes?»ate: . EXI fl flT when the Pr;lowing proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wits RESOLUTION HO. B9-121' A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION OF HENRY AND LANA TRETTIN FOR THE PREOHANA FRMS PLANNED UNIT DEVf1LOPMfNT AND APPROVAL QF ITS PLAN. WHEREAS, Henry and Lana mrettin have tiled an application with the Board of County Commioaionera of Garfield County, Colorado, for the Approval of the Preehana Farma•Planned Unit Development and approval of its plan for the parcel of land to be rezoned, WHEREAS, a public, hearing was held by 'this Doard on August 7, 1909, WHEREAS, based on evidence, sworn testimony, exhibits,' study of the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated areae of Garfield County, oommenta from the Garfield County Planning Department and the Garfield County Planning Commission, and commonta,from Gll interested parties, than Hoard finds, based oh subetanti•al oompetent evidence, an lollownsl 1. That proper publication and public notice was provided, ns required by law, for the hearing before the Board, a. . That the !Gearing before the Doard was extensive and aomplote, that all pertinent feats', matters and Immo were submitted; and that all interested parties' woro hoard at the hearing, 3. That the Garfield County Planning Commieoion has recommended to this Board that the requarated coning (Mange be granted, provided that certain conditions be impooe+d upon the +applicant. 4. :'That the proposed P.U.D. zoning In to general conformity with the purposes eat forth in Section 4 of the Garfield County boning Resolution of 1970, as amended, and will meat the purposes uat forth therein, 5. That the proposed P.U.D, zoning is in general oomplianee with tha reoolmnendetions met forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated area of the County, provided proper mitigation is performed to mitigate ,impactgl 6. That the requested Planned Unit Development in in general oompllanoo with all requirements of the appli,oab'o Gerfield County 'sensing Renolution and, further, that the requested Planned Unit Development Is suitable and appropriate for the aubieot property, given the looetton, oondtt:ion•and ciroumst:anoen of the property, and it is generally aonpatible with oxinting land uaea in the surrounding nearby area, 7. That for the above.atated and other ransoms, the propelled Planned Unit Development Modification and Planned Unit Development Plan is In the bast interest of the health, aaafoty, morale, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the oiti?ene of Garfield County; and Beig 7652 ricv536 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of. County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that the application for the approval of the Preshana Fauna Planned Unit Development be approved for the following described property in the unincorporated area of Garfield County, as follows: 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 Presbana 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. Dated this 5th day of septeater ATTEST; GARPISi.B'L �17'.HOARD 07 COMMISSIONERS SFIELo rftrTe .COLOIRADO %taco.) `-' " 2444- C1 k of the Hoard Q Chairman Upon motion duly made and seconded' tits. -foregoing Resolution was - adopted by the following vote/ Marian I. Smith Arnold L. MackLey miner (Buokey) Areeney STATE OF COLORADO County of Garfield Aye Aye Aye. I, , County Clerk and •x -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 oopied from the Records of the Proceedings of the Board of County. Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS of said County, 19T_ of the Board of • WHEREOF, i have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D. County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk. County Commissioners. pasimn FARM PUD • ZONE 11DGULAT/CNS SHOP/ON X. 4°04iTp4 BEN 71g.2.Pi.t.lt Exhvo. /1 A. To carry out the purposes and provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, Garfield County, Colorado and particularly, Section 4.00 of that title, as amended, the Preshana Farm planned Unit Development Zoning District is further divided into the foliating tone 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 II. Open Space District A. Uses, hy„gAght: Agricultural use including farm,,ghards, ranch and customary accessory uses includintfi.b4.14i4rfor:ghelter. or enclosute .of animals or property employeed-iri:!nrof?*ahCve uses. • . Cpan Space Equestrian activities including PtiblieS;eqUSitiLakeVents addended by less than 300 spectators. Water imcoundsents. . • B. US-estConditional: : . . Nene C. Uses, Special: Public Events - Greater than 300 spectators. 2.. Preshann Farm PCU Zone Regulations Domestic Water Storage Structure Wastewater Treatment Facility. D. Minimum Lot Area: None E. Maximum Lot Coverage: Nene F. Miniraim Setback: Front Yard 20 Feet Rear Yard 20 Feet Side Yard 20 Feet G. Mvximuma Building Height: 25 feet 'Section II1. Equestrian Center District A. Uses, y Right: set% 762 S538 Agricultural used including farm'�:..ijai uldeii;.nurtery, orchards, ranch and customary accessory uses includinij;pxildiAgs for shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or property.eeployed;:in.ahy of the above uses. Single family, two-family, multi40.1y x3aelliingi for persons employed on the premises. ..;A.:',.,., . Riding Stable Tads Shop Veterinary Clinic Kennel Day Nursery, Camp, and Sdrodlc" B. Uses, Conditional: None C. Uses& Special: Domestic Water Storage Structure. Wastewater Treatment Facility. i9 zz Page 3 Preshana Farm P1D Zone Regulations D. Minimum lot Area: Plane E. Maximslot Coverage: None F. Minimum Setback: Front Yard 25 Feet Rear Yard 25 Peet Side Yard 25 beet BIDE fatitt19 G. Maximum Building Height: 25 Feet B. Off -Street Parking: Single Family Dwelling - 2 narking spaces. Two -Family a Multi -Family Dwelling - 1-1/2 parking spaces. Section IV. Single Family District A. Uses, By Right: Single family dwelling and .'c'stth.y....adcessorp uses including buildings for the enclosure of_.pfbpstty,attessory to the use of the lot for residential purnosewtandjeholierithedges, gardens, and walls and similar landscape features: Watdnals:shall be kept on a lot except for dogs and oats, thich:*iiav;be• kept for non-ccntereial purposes. Park, open space Water imponndnents 'Live-in maids and caretakers gaaiters'-'iciien residence on the lot and not exceeding.650 Ltrmunity Recreation Facilities for 'use Of and guests. B. Uses, c12 itionale Nate C. Uses, Special: Wastewater Treatnent Facility .� attached to the Primary square feet in floor area Preshana Farm PMD residents :fv T • s9 ti {1 page°4 Preshana Farm YID Zone Regulations D. Minimum Tnt Area: 14,000 square feet E..kbxisten lot Coverage: 60% F. Minimum Setbacks: Front Yard 20 Feet Rear Yard 20 Feet Side Yard 20 Feet G. Maxinuin Height of Buildings: 27 feet H. Off -Street parking: Sourparking spaces per single family duelling unit. One parking space per caretaker unit. The Canmu:ity Recreation Facility shall provide a minimax of six parking spaces. Section V. Cluster Housing District A. Uses.ly Right- Single family and two family.dr:eiiiiigin iid•-cistcnery accessory uses including buildings for the.enciosure.df:property aocessary to the use of the lot for residential•pi:rpase"ssedd_fencea,.hedges, :gardens; and walls and similar landscape•featuies....tNo,;animals shall be kept on a lot except for dogs and cats;:;which ire. Abe kept for non e:moeLoial purposes. Park, open space Water impoundments B. Uses, Conditional: None C. Uses, Special: None D. Mink= Int Area: 5,000 square feet (CI Page 5 Preshana Farm PUD sone Regulations gf 1162 IICES• E. Maxie m let Coverage: 60% F. Minimum Setbacks: As shown on the Preshana Fara Final Plat . G. Maxinwn Haight of Buildings: 27 feet H. off -Street Parking: %o Parking Spaces/Swelling Unit Section Vi. Service Residential District A. Uses, y Right: • Single family and two family dwellings and customary accessory uses including buildings for the enclosure of property accessory to the use of the lot for residential purposes and fences, hedged, 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-camercial purposes. B. Oses, Conditional: Nate C. UsesSazcial: Bed and Breakfast inn - (Malt tditip `?.l Restaurant (Maxima Seatixj;'TCa D. Minimum let Area: 15,000 square feet. E. Maximum lot Coverage: 60% F. Minimum Setbacks From redginqpistsict Bdundaries: Front Yard 20 Feet . Rear Yard 20 Feet Side Yard 20 Feet , dpipk251.r .'vP4:01-4L A , Plige • • Freshens Farm PUD Zone Regulations G. mmkmqm Height of Buildings: 25 feet H. Off -Street Parking: Lodging Unit Restaurant Single Pauly Dwelling Two Family Nailing Revised 06-23-89 Wpfer8-23 sac*n?tz triatters - 1 parking space/unit - 1 space/4 seats - 2 parking spaces - 1 1/2 parking spaces. e8 _LAND USE Sthn& y _ 12Inal D.VS ACES Ref pup WMY SPACE COMET 000 OEN tOL601PiW COM 06iMCT 10 10/ 1242 S0 O E MALY 6 WAWA POM pM IOT ti6 '422 WAWA 501110E REmomu 0WELT 0161L110 UMW 2 2.6 411 1. bV6U (16 10 TOTAL MUM/ WU 31 N/.I NTN. LO00113 UMW W 100.00 Weal D&SITY [MUM UMI6) .60 UnIt/Aen 0 • I, SINGLE PANILY DIS1RICf AtmMM NM 01 ritzpos PUD ZONE NAP PRESHANA FARM k." Bo 762 mitiiitt. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A parcel of land situated in a portion of Lots 3, 4, 6, 17, 18 -and 19 of Section 31, Township 7 South, Rengs 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"N. 2360.39 feet to the Southeast Comer of Reception No. 279416, also being a point on the westerly right -o£ -way of County Road No. 100, a rebar and cap L.S. No. 10732 in place, the Time Point of Beginning; thence 3.00'11'29'W. along said westerly right -of -pay 827.14feet to a rebar and cap L.S. No. 10732 in place; thence continuing along said westerly right-of-way 5.03.56'2914. 117.74 feet to a rebar arra cap L. S. No. 10732 in place; thence continuing along said westerly right-of-way 3.11.37.27"W. 299.44 feet; thence leaving said westerly right-of-way N.72°41'32"W. along a line being northerly of Blue Creek 136.34 feet; thence continuing along a line being northerly of Blue Creek 8.77.44152"N. 317.09 feet; thence continuing along a line being northerly of Blue Creek N.82.48'46"W. 375.98 feet; thence contimning along a line being northerly of Blue Creek N.41.30'29"W, 89.74 feet; thence eohtinuirg along a line being northerly of Blue Creek N.81.01'27"N. 286.92 feet; thence N.13•12'20"E. 120.00 feet to a point in an existing fence; theme N.76°47'40"W. along said existing fence 1038.73 feet to a paint on the easterly line of Parcel B of Reception No. 375658 (franserence rebar and cap L.S. No. 10732 bears 5.00.00'18"W. 263.28 feet(} theme N.og•oo•le"E. along said easterly lite 1013.61 feet'to a point on the southerly right -of -say of Colorado State Highway No. 82 as evidenced by existing right -of -Way uonweents and the existing centerline (whence a rebar and cap L.S. N). 3317 beare 3.00•C0'18"14. 3.99 feet); thence 5.79.66'55"E. along said,.sautherly right -of -stay 1982.77 feet; thence 5,10.30'58"6, along Ute easterly 11iie':0,'f*id)Nhceptlon No. 279416 133.47 feet to a rebar and cap L.S. No. 10732'-dtp11ce; rthmtce 8.79'44'32"E. along the southerly line of said Reception 1Ww.279416•247i39 feet to the True Point of .Beginning(; said parcel oontaining7871888;4are'sq )Hire or less. Together with a perpetual easement .bei6g;'v'il portLall.,of Parcel "B" Shown in Reception No. 376658 situated in a portle0.?Dfliit;*Vof Section 81, Totmehlp 7 South, Range 87 West of the Sixth PrinoireS' Met'idierni2County 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 8.81'10'28"W. 4257.59 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way of State Highway No. 82, the True Point of Beginning; thence S.00°00'18'%4. along the easterly line of said Parcel "B" 1013.81 feet to a point on an existing fence; theme N.76'47'40"N, along said fence 67.27 feet to a point on the westerly line of said Parcel "B"; thence N.00°07'36"E. along said westerly line 1009.48 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way of said State Highway No. 82; thence S.79656'550k. along said southerly right-of- way 64.35 feet to the True Point of Beginning• said easement containing 1.496 acres, wore or leas, From: Janet Buck Tor Kathy A. Eastlev Cci Jahn Leybourne Subjectr Ross Montessorl School Dater Monday, April 29, 2013 3:49;06 PM EXHIBIT t 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 nie 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 1.1t1' meeting. The Commission Felt that if further development was to occur along the Catherine Store roacl (County Road 100) then the county may need to address access across the 13ridge 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 jleybournef@carbondaleco.net Frani i.LcJiael Pr elm Tot Kathy A. Eastlev Subject! Amend the Preshana Farm PUL) Date! Monday, May 06, 2013 7:04;18 AM Kathy, 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 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design RE: Review of Proahana 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, Teel free to call if you have any questions or comments, Sincerely, Mounta'n Cross Engineer ng, Inc, Chris Halo, PE 826' Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945,6544 F: 970,945.5568 www,mountalnoross•eng,00m Prom: Bill Gavelte Toi Kathv A. F,istleti Subjects Freshens Farms PUD Amendment Dater Wednesday, May 15, 2013 11;04:2l AM Kathy, EXHIBIT I have reviewed the submittal for the proposed Preshana Farms PUD amendment and I have no issues with the proposal. Thanks, 13111 Gavette Deputy Chief Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District www,carbonclalefire•org 970.963.2491 PIKE, 1'M16.ROScuP Frown Carev Gannon To: Kdthv A FastleY Cc: Ianlra Allen Subject! Preshana Farms PUD Amendment and Rezoning (ZDAA 7509 and PIMA 7510) Data: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10;0659 AM Kathy: 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 ori 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, tlecause 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. .IIIIII:lII I.IIIIII1III IIIIII IIT 1M III III it l'�IIiCI 9681 /24/2000 01;39P 6117A P186 N ALSDORF 1 al 1ZR, 0,00 0 0.00 OARPX6LD COUNTY CO EXHIBIT STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) At a regular meeting of the Hoard of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' .Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs on xr the 22xW. ., day of pub, A.D. Qct ..,� there were present: j�plvn Mgrtin Larry McCowan Mit $owe D l hed sdorf Edward Greed , Commissioner, Chairman Conanuissioner , Commissioner , County Attorney , Clerk of the Board County Administrator when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit; RESOLUFJON NO..2.0.00i6 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITII THE APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNrr DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT APPLICATION FOR TIE ASPEN EQUESTRIAN ESTATES SUBDIVISION OF11-1B PRBSFTANA FARMS PLIC AND LAND DEVELOPMENT. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, has received application loom the Jay Weinberg of Aspen Equestrian Estates, LLC, for a subdivision and land development plan to allow for approval of a PUO 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 Fames PDI) per Resolution 98.11, which was signed on the 2' day of Minch, 1998; and WHEREAS, Aspen Equestrian Estates, LLC, is requesting an series of amendments to tho 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 )?age 1 of' 4 `fa 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 559991 02/24/2000 01:3 01174 P187 R RLSDCRP 2 of 12 R,0.00 D 0.00 DRRFIELD 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 opportmuity 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'd day of January, 2000, upon the question of whetherthe 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 bearing, 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.RS.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 11111`111111111111111111111111111iii1111111111 558501 02/24/2008 01.30P B1174 P100 N RLBDIRV 3 of 12 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO . 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 be 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 oldie 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 9th 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 ILIUM 11111111110 111111111 111011E111 • 559891 02/24/2000 01r39P 81174 P189 M RLSDORF 4 ef. 12 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Dated this 22 day of FebA.D.20no , GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSI 'HERS, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLO.�� , it. Upon4bifort duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the 'dllowing.vote: f'nMMTCCTnMRR CRA TRMAN .THAN R MARTIN COMMISSIONER LARRY L. MCCOWN COMMISSIONER WALTER A. STOWE STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) Aye Aye Aye 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 WITNESS WHBREOF, I 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 11111111111111111110101111111111111110111111101111 558891 02/24/2000 01:8$P 01174 P190 M RLSDORF 9 eF 12 R 0.00 0 0.00 ORRFIELD COINITy CO Exhibit A L • ZONE DISTRICTS The provisions of these regulations shall prevail and govern the development of Preshana Fann 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, 1979 and as amended, wherever these regulations are applicable to Preshana Farm PUD. ZONE DISTRICTS LISTED To cavy 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 district classifications: - O.S. - EC. - R20-S.F.R. - R1O-S.F.R Open Space District Equestrian Center District R20 - Single Family Residential District R10 - Single Family Residential District B. 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 sheker for livestock and livestock feed when the footprint of the structure is 600 square feet or less. 1 11111111111111111111 I I 11111111111111 5589 2000 01�39P 61174 P191 M RLSDORF 6.'af 12 'R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Uses, Conditional NONE Uses, Special: a. Golf Course b. Golf Driving Range 4. Minimum Lot Area 43,560 Square Feet (1 acre) 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, inducting 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 I. Public Equestrian Event attended by Tess than 300 people 4 1E111001111111111111111110111111hl11111(1111111 55SS91 02/24/2000 01:3� 81174 P192 M RLSDORF .7 of 12 R 0.00 0 0.00 GRRFIELD COIMTY CO 2. • Uses, Conditional: NONE 3. Uses, Special: a. Home Occupation (a e. Miniature t30tf 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 Yana 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 for shelter or enclosure of animals or property accessory to use of the lot for residential purposes and fences, hedges, gardens, Naos and similar landscape features. b. Park and Open Space R 1 i 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 to. l 111111110111111111111111111111111111011111111111111 658891 02/24/2000 01:38P 81174 Plea N RLSOORP 8 of 12 R 0.00 a 0.00 CPRPIELD 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 0.4011.0 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 annals 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 1 0 1 1 1 1 I. 1 111111 11111 111111 1111 111111 11111 111111 III 1101 III 1111 .0 of 12 R 0.00 D 0.00 GRRFIELD COUNTY CD 4. Minimum Lot Area 10,000 square feet 5. Maximum Lot Coverage 40 percent 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 Binding 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 N. DESIGN STANDARDS A. SIGNS All signs shall be subject to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution as amended except as listed below. 1. Open Space District One subdivision identification sign not to exceed i00 square feet 2. R10 — Single Family 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 below /0 I 1 I (111111111111 H 11111111111111111111111111111111 988681 02/24/2000 01z38P 81174 P198 R RLSDORF 10'of 12 R 0 00 D 0.00 ORRFIELD COUNTY CO 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 *and 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. 2. Fences within the Residential Districts shall not exceed 48" when located within the Front Yard Setback. C. LIGHTING All 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 Tots. III. VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Except as defined below, all provisions of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations shall be applicable to the Preshena Farm PUD. A. STREET DESIGN STANDARDS 1. Design Standards: Standard street design shalt be as identified in the attached chart titled Preshana Farm - Road Design Standards. 2. Cul-de-sac Length: Cul-de-sacs in excess of 600 feet shall observe the. following design standards: a. Minimum Right -of -Way Radius 715 feet b. Minimum Driving Surface, Outside Radius 70feet 1/ I. r:< pRE \NA FARM PUD lad Design Standards 7/20/97 LAD NAME 1 Primary Access !Secondary Access NOTES: 1111111 0I 1110 Ilii1111111111111111III1111111I/III 559691 02/24/2000 01a39P 01174 P196 M AL9bORF lief 12 R 0.00 D 000 ORRFIELD COUNTY CO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R.O.W. LANE SHOULDER DITCH MINIMUM WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH C. LINE All widths & radii are in feet RADIUS 70 12 70 11 MAXIMUM CUL-DE-SAC GRADE RADIUS R.O.W. 4 10' min. 100 a% 4 10' min. 100 6% 1. AO mad surfaces are a minimum of chip 6 seal. 2. AA roads are two lames in width. 3. Shoulders are gravel or a stablized stnectural section as approved by the County Road Supervisor that alows was to grow in the shoulder area. 4. Curb and gutter are not required on any road in the PUD. 5. Cubde-saw shall have a minimum paved. outside taming radius of 70 feet 75 75 17 TGMALLOY CONSULTING, LLC EXHIBIT to LAND USE PLANNING • SITE DESIGN • NATURAL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS • PUBLIC PROCESS July 31, 2013 Kathy Eastley, Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 816o1 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 Planning 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 loss 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 12T") 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 2n`' 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 (LUDC), 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 LUDC, and meeting with the 402 PARK DRIVE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS • COLORADO • 81 601 (P) 970.945.0832 • (F) 970.945,0833 •EMAIL: 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 t). 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 LDDC. 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: TGMALLOV@SOPRIS.NET Ross Montessori School/Supplemental Information for 8.14.13 P&Z Hearing July 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 LUDC, 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 to through 15 of our original application for a 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 • 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 5 standards in Article 7 that would support such a requirement including compatibility (7-102), environmental quality (7-205), and compatible design (7-301), 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, trailhead, 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 14`h Sincerely, Tim Mal oy Principal, TG Malloy Consulting LLC Attachments 402 PARK DRIVE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS • COLORADO • 81601 (P) 970.945.0832 • (F) 970.945.0833 •E-MAIL: TGMALLOV@SOPRIS.NET Comparison of Uses for Rural Zone Distrlc and E Exhibit 1 v Use Category Use Type Existing PUD T LUDC Notes AGRICULTURAL AND ANIMAL -RELATED USES General Agriculture P P Building or Structure Necessary to Agricultural Operations, Accessory P P Forestry P Products Processing, Storage, 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 L Dwelling Unit, Accessory A Manufactured Horne Park M Office Home Office/Business S P Referred to as "Horne Deco atlon" In PUD Plan. Group Living Foster Home P Group Home Facilities L Temporary Employee (lousing 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 q 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 end Open Space Cemetery q Park P P Community Service Facility Corrections Facility M Educational Facility 1 Emer:enc Shelter L Fire Station A Hospital M Public Building A Transportation Access Route A Aircraft Landing Strip L Aircraft, Ultrallght Operation p Airport M Heliport M Helistop M Mass Transit Facility M Park and Ride Facility 1 Trail, Trallhead, Road p COMMERCIAL USES _ Office Broadcasting Studio L Professional Office 1 Professional Office, Tem ora A LmIted to 1 ear. Bakery Convenience Store 1 Nursery/Greenhouse P p Retell/Wholesale Optional Premises Cultivation Operation Retail, General A Retail, 9uipment, Machinery, Lumber Yards Retail, Vehicle and Equipment Sales M Bulk Sales of LPG and CNG Golf Course/Driving Range S A facility. FUD zoning also allows mini golf Recreation and Theater, Indoor Entertainment Motor Sports Center M Recreation, Indoor g 1 Exhibit 1 Permitted (P) Uses Unlikely for Practical Reasons tJses 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 Campground/ RV Park M Visitor Accommodation Lodging Facilities L INDUSTRIAL USES Compressor/Pipeline Pump Station (Not Subject to Article 9) L Compressor Booster A Associated with oil and gas drilling, Extraction, Gravel M Extraction 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, targe 1 5,000 gallons or more. Oil and Gas Drilling and Production P Contractor's Yard, Small A Contractor's Yard, Large M Material Handling L Processing L Service Processing, Accessory (Batch Plant) L Processing, Temporary A Vehicles, Machinery, and Heavy Equipment M Vehicle Safet Area A Assembly of Structures L Fabrication Cabinet Making, Woodworking, Metalworking, Glazing, Machining, Welding A Equipment, Small Appliances L Goads Processed From Natural Resources M Storage 1 Storage, Mini 1 Warehouse and Freight Storage, Cold Storage Plants Movement Storage, Hazardous Materials M Warehouse and Distribution Center M Mineral Waste Disposal Areas L Recycling Collection Center L Recycling Processing Facility M Salvage Yard M Waste and Salvage 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 Faculty P Water Reservoir P Water Tank or Treatment Facility P L Wind Energy System, Commercial M Wind Energy System, Small L m fACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES Building or Structure, Accessory P Fence, Hedge or Wall P P Permitted (P) Uses Unlikely for Practical Reasons tJses 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 Talleu@garliieid-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: I. 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 mitten 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 Attomey is of the opinion that a re -zoning cannot legally be contingent upon such acquisition. We do not agree with that opinion. We believe that the BOCC 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 Me. 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 currently 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 __,� 1'�( By: Presiden PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Trend Investments. LLC has applied to the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to request approval for an amendment to the Preshana Farm Planned Unit Development to remove the Equestrian Parcel from the PUD zoning and to rezone that parcel as Rural. The subject site is on property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit: Legal Description: (PLEASE INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION) Practical Description: (PLEASE INSERT PRACTICAL DESCRIPTION) Proposal: The Preshana Farm PUD (aka Aspen Equestrian Estates Subdivision) was approved for development of 47 units on 57.89 -acres, including a 17.39 -acre Open Space Parcel and a15.21 - acre Equestrian Center Parcel. The applicant proposes to remove the Equestrian Center Parcel from the PUD and to rezone the 15.21 -acres as Rural. The application includes a revised PUD Plan and PUD Guide (zoning document) both of which indicate removal of the site from the zoning and development standards of the PUD. The parcel will then be subject to uses and dimensional restrictions of the Rural Zone District. All persons affected by the proposal are invited to appear and state their views, protest or support. If you can not appear personally at such hearings, then you are urged to state your views by letter, as the Board of County Commissioners will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners, and others affected, in deciding whether to grant or deny the request. The application may be reviewed at the office of Community Development located at 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Garfield County Administration Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, A Public hearing on the application has been scheduled for Monday, October 7, 2013 at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room, Garfield County Administration Building, 108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Community Development Department Garfield County