Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 03.13.1996R EQUEST: • • PC 3/13/96 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Planned Unit Development (PUD) Modification to the Los Amigos PUD text and plan map APPLICANT: Los Amigos Ranch Partnership PLANNERS: Joseph Wells Land Planning ,Inc. ENGINEERS: Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. L)CAT1ON: A parcel of land located in portions of Sections 35 and 36, T6S, R89W; portions of Sections 31, 32 and 33 of T6S, R88W; portions of sections 5 and 6 T7S, R88W of the 6th P.M.: more practically described as a tract of land located approximately two (2) miles southeast of Glenwood Springs off of C.R. 114. SITE DATA: A 2206.0 acre tract to be split into tracts of land that would allow a maximum of 423 dwelling units. WATER: Central water SEWER: Central sewage disposal ACCESS: County Road 114 ZONING: Planned Unit Development I_ RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The PUD is located in the existing subdivision classification for Study Area I of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. The Plan recognized the original PUD approved and modified in 1981. • 1 • • II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. PUD Text Amendment: Resolution No. 81-358 is the last time the zone district text of the PUD was defined and it contained five (5) zone districts.(See Section B of application) The applicants are proposing to modify the number and type of zone districts from five to seven, and creating a new High Density Single Family zone district (H.D.S. F.). (See new PUD Zone Map, Introduction) Also added was a school zone that was not included in the original plan, even though a school site was included in the PUD. B. PUD Plan Amendment: The new PUD plan maintains the same overall density as the 1981 PUD, but the number of multi -family units has been reduced and replaced by single family detached units. The following is a breakdown of the units and acreage contained in the proposed and existing PUDs: TYPE 1981 1996 Units Acres Units Acres SF lots High Density 0 0 80 60 Low Density 160 531 243 760 Rural Density _a 314 _4 226 Subtotal 163 841 327 1046 Townhouse Units 56 8 0 0 Multi -Family Units Sub #1 (sold) 96 15 96 15 South Parcel l08 70 A 0 Subtotal 194 85 96 15 Total Residential 423 934 423 1061 Ag./Open Space 1203 1070 School Site 8 13 Neighborhood Corn. 3 5 Roads & Utilities 58 57 Total Acreage 2206 2206 The proposed and existing PUD plans are included in the introduction of the application. II_ MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Zoning: An approved PUD may be modified as a zone district text and PUD Plan amendment per the provisions of Section 4.12.03 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution subject to the following: (1) No modification, removal or release of the provisions of the Plan by the County shall affect the rights of the residents, occupants and owners of or • • the PUD to maintain and enforce those provisions at law or in equity; and (2) No substantial modifications, removal or release of the provisions of the Plan by the County shall be permitted except upon a finding by the County, following a public hearing called and held in accordance with the provisions of Section 24-67-104, C.R.S., that the modification, removal or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire PUD, does not affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the PUD, or the public interest, and is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. The original PUD ownership has been changed by the sale of the remaining multi -family section to another party and the sale of a number of the presently platted lots to other parties. Technically, each of these property owners has an interest in the common elements of the PUD. Section 4.10 states that "the Common Open Space of a PUD may be owned and maintained by the property owners within the PUD or by an organization chosen therefrom or thereby." The new PUD reduces the amount of Open Space by 200 acres. While there is a question about the claims of the individuals, there may be a claim by the Homeowners Association as a whole, that they needed to be a part of the application. Each of these parties will have to be noticed for the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, but there is no notice to them for the Planning Commission meeting. Staff is concerned that there may be issues that these property owners have that the Planning Commission will not hear about due to the lack of a notice requirement and possibly ownership interest. B. Subdivision Regulations. Since this PUD amendment will result in further subdivision, a sketch plan is included as a part this application. The approval of the PUD amendments will also be the first step in the subdivision process and the next step in the process will be to submit a Preliminary Plan for the next phase of the project. C. Comprehensive Plan: Any PUD has to be found to be in "general conformity with the County's general plan." For the purposes of this finding, the "general plan" for the County is the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, Study Area I. The present PUD is designated as an Existing Subdivision on the Cattle Creek Area and Carbondale Area Land Use District maps. This designation is based on the PUD plan approved in 1981. The proposed amendments will need to be found to be in general conformity with the present Comprehensive Plan. In terms of the Comprehensive Plan, the following analysis is provided based on the Goals and Objectives Section: Housing: In general the proposed PUD meets the general goal in that a variety of housing types are proposed for the property. One issue that will need to be addressed is the wood burning stove restrictions that all PUD's have had to comply with since the last PUD was approved. Transportation: Policy 3.6 states that "development proposals will be required to mitigate traffic impacts on County road proportional to those impacts". • • There is further discussion of this issue in terms of proportionate share in the road impacts section of this report. Commercial & Industrial: The development includes some commercial area that will be consistent. with Objective 4.3, which states that the County needs to "encourage the location of commercial development in appropriate areas that maximize convenience to County residents". Recreation and OpenSpace: The existing and proposed PUD include significant amounts of open space, although there is one area where the property is adjacent to BLM property and the BLM has noted some concerns about the design of the lot layout and potential conflicts with the agency's management plans. See the BLM letter included in the agency continents section of this report. Additionally, the staff note that there have not been any specific proposals about the transfer of the Open Space areas to the Homeowners Association or some entity that they support. Agriculture: The development has included existing agricultural land in the open space designated for the PUD, which is adjacent to adjoining agricultural operations in the Spring Valley area. Water and Sewer Services: The use of ISDS is discouraged in the Comprehensive Plan, particularly in areas that could be served by an existing sewage disposal system. Additionally, the plan objectives strongly discourage the proliferation of private water and sewer systems. Policy 7.2 states the following: "Where logical, legal and economic extension of services lines from an existing water and/or sewage system can occur, the County will require development adjacent to or within reasonable distance, to enter into the appropriate agreements to receive service. The burden of proof regarding logical, legal and economic constraints is on the developer." There is no proof provided by the developer that the extension of central sewer into all portions of the PUD is not feasible. Additionally, the present water system is a private water system. Natural Environment: The applicants have done a preliminary analysis of geologic and soils constraints to the property. Mitigation of some of the constraints will require further study at Preliminary Plan. There are no known state or federally protected threatened or endangered species on the property. D. Water: With the exception of the large Rural Residential lots, the entire PUD is and will be served by a central water system. At the present time, the water system is privately owned, which is inconsistent with the County Commissioners current policy of requiring that the developer turn the system over to a public entity that allows the homeowners to have some ability to be involved in the operation, maintenance and improvement of the system. The Commissioners have accepted various forms of homeowners associations or a special improvement district. At Preliminary Plan, a method of turning over the water system to a public or quasi -public entity, that will allow the homeowners in the development to have control and responsibility for it. • • E. Sewer: Portions of the PUD are within the Spring Valley Sanitation District and will be served by the District's facilities. The District boundaries do not appear to have any direct relationship to the proposed and in some cases, existing property boundaries. At the time of Preliminary Plan submittal, this issue needs to be addressed and a proposed solution to resolve the inconsistency. Right now there may be people that have no service from the District that are subject to the District mill levy. The areas within the PUD, but out of the District will either be annexed to the District, be served via an out of district service agreement or utilize an ISDS. The areas proposed to be served by the District are the multi -family area, commercial area, high density residential area, the school site and "other potential properties within or adjacent to the District. The lots to be served by ISDS are described as the lots extend along the ridgeline and are scattered in such a way that it would not be cost effective or practical to place them on the central sewer system owned by the District. It has always been the County's policy to strongly encourage the use of central sewage treatment facilities for all lots that have access to such a system. Staff is not convinced that it is economically infeasible to better utililize the Spring Valley Sanitation District facilities. The applicant's engineer has made some general statements about the lack of feasibility of extending lines into the large lot area along the ridge. Soil Conservation Service soils information for the area indicates that there are areas of proposed development that have moderate and severe limitations for ISDS leach fields. Staff would recommend that further analysis of the connection to the central sewage facility be done at least at the time of Preliminary Plan, if not prior to the approval of the requested PUD amendment. F. Road Impacts: The applicant was originally required to contribute $3750.00 to the Road and Bridge Fund for improvements to CR 114 as a part of the original PUD improvement. As a part of the Preliminary Plan approval Subdivision II, Filings 2, 3, and 4, the Los Amigo Partnership's cash obligation was changed to require the developer to make certain improvements to the intersection of the subdivision's main entrance and County Road 114. Exhibit H in the application is a letter from the Project Manager explaining the applicant's position regarding "vested" access from a public right-of-way. The vesting that occurred as a part of the previous approvals was based on the process and procedures in effect at that time. Staff contends that the amending of the PUD reopens the discussion and consideration of the possible off site road improvements based on the current County policy. The present policy is to require a developer to be responsible for their proportionate share of the improvements to a road based on the development's impacts. A development impact fee formula is being developed for 4 -Mile road that the Commissioners will be able to transfer to other roadways. The formula will include contributions made to a roadway's improvement in the determination of a developments proportionate share of the overall cost of improvements to a road. The applicant should be responsible for the developments proportionate share of roadway improvements, based on a formula that will include credit for any improvements made already by the developer. • • The Project Managers letter also brings up an additional question regarding the legal right to expand the present access, without having the ownership of the property either with the County or the applicant. Until the agreement noted in the letter is finalized, staff questions whether or not the applicant has the right to expand the use of the access beyond the presently platted lots. G. Phasing: Section 4.09.01 requires a PUD to begin development within one (1) year from the time of its final zone change approval. The project as a whole may be developed in stages and the development of each stage and the PUD as whole must be completed in substantial compliance with the development schedule approved as a part of the PUD approval. The proposed phasing schedule needs to be moved up and the dates need to be specific, i.e. December 31, 1998. H. Agency Comments: The following comments have been received: Colorado Department of Health: The Department of Health noted that there may be slope and geologic limitations to ISDS. It was noted that the expansion of the existing sewage treatment facilities will require an evaluation of other alternatives, including other regional facilities in the area.(See pg S ") Roaring Fork School District R E-1: The District has determined that the proposed school site is adequate to meet the land requiremAits for a school site, as opposed to paying cash in lieu of land. (See letter pg. 7 • ) Division of Wildlife: The DOW sees some possible improvements to the present layout due to lots being pulled back from the slopes, but they have made some suggestions for future consideration in the design of the subdivision. (See letter Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District: The District can serve the development's fire protection needs utilizing the water system for the development. The District will be requiring the developers to pay impact fee at the time of platting lots. (See letter pg. % ) Bureau o f Land Management: The BLM has expressed some concerns about the tentative layout of lots in the High Density Single Family area and the potential for use conflicts between the public and private land. They have also noted the need to consider big game movement through the development. There are federal minerals underlying portions of the development, that need to be considered in any future subdivision action. (See letter pgs. )) f 0 III_ RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: 1. That the application submitted met the requirements of Section 10 of the Garfield County zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 2. That the public meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete and that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted, and that all interested parties were heard at the meeting. 4 3. That the proposed PUD modifications do affect the rights of the residents, occupants and owners of the PUD to maintain and enforce those provisions at law or in equity. 4. That the proposed PUD modifications are consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire PUD and does affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the PUD, or the public interest and is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. IV_ RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public meeting to allow the applicant to get the consent of the other property owners within the PUD to make the proposed modifications and that the applicant provide additional information regarding: 1. The proposed use of ISDS versus central sewage disposal for the large single family lots. 2. A more definitive phasing plan, that starts the phasing within one year of approval of the PUD modifications. 3. The proposed method of transferring the ownership of the water system to the, Homeowners Association or another entity that will allow the homeowners to participate directly in the management, maintenance and operation of the system. • Ldwatson@wic.net, 09:58 AM 3/4/96 , comments on subdiv prelim plan 1 Return -Path: <dwatson@wic.net> X -U I D L: 826036032.000 Comments: Authenticated sender is <dwatson@rodin.wic.net> From: dwatson@wic.net (Dwain Watson) To: mbean@asw.infosphere.com Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 09:58:05 -0700 Subject: comments on subdiv prelim plans Reply -To: dwatson@wic.net X -Confirm -Reading -To: dwatson@wic.net X-Pmrqc: 1 Return -Receipt -To: dwatson@wic.net Priority: normal Mark: 4awimoso40. We have received the Los Amigos Ranch PUD rezone application. The information provided is somewhat limited in nature and scope. There is a potential problem with slopes in the lots and possibly distance to bedrock. The design engineer states that Spring Valley Sanitation District could be easily expanded. During site application review for such expansion the engineer will need to explore alternatives such as consolidation with a regional facility as required by statute. If these Tots are going to pump up to Spring Valley Sanitation, could one then assume that they could pump in any direction? The large Tots that are within the district and proposed to be served by ISDS; will these lot owners be paying mill levies in their property tax to the sanitation district? If these ISDS fail will they be allowed to connect and will there be capacity for them, since they are in the district and possibly paying taxes to the sanitation district. Regards, Watson [ Printed for mbean@rof.net (Mark L. Bean) 1 I1rR E16 -1996 1,1:'23 r jiIRIIIG roRIC Si:II.DIST. _ P.01 Roifttnij Fotk S0hbtt Disllr ct RE -1 I oz.g Q 140$ i irid Avenue. Git}nwt50ti SPlul *( Jo( (fn 61602-0820 Telephone (970) 945 6558 March 6, 1996 VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Building & Planning 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Los Amigos Ranch Dear Mark, ❑R. JAMti$ L. BADER, Superintendent JANE$ C. PHILLIPS, Asstslsnt Superintendent F{ptiriON PELLAND, Budget Officer After reviewing the Los Amigos Ranch P.U.U. as amended, Roaring Fork School District (the District) has determined that the 13.4 acres designated as a school site will be adequate, and the District will accept such designation in lieu of impact fees. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, (// Shannon Pelland Budget Officer TOTAL P.n1 • STATE OF COLORADO Roy Rosner, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EOUAL OeeOlil UN! TY EMI's OYER John W. Mumma, Director 6060 !headway Denver, Colorado 110216 Telephone: 13031 297- I 1 92 March 4, 1996 Garfield County Planning Department 109 8t13 Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Staff: MATER TO It is generally accepted that from a wildlife standpoint, that a reduced footprint of human development lessens the impact on wildlife. In other words, multistory multi -family building has less impact. After reviewing the current proposal for changes to the Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D., it is nay opinion that moving the proposed development back away from the rim of the plateau will reduce the disturbance to wildlife forced to winter on the steep southwest facing slopes. Whether or not this will offset lie increased number of houses in the northwest portion of the P.U.D. is an interesting question. The developers wish to eliminate fences will improve the ease of wildlife movement through the development. If they would consider eliminating some lots at the ends of the open space corridors or situating the building envelopes to allow a 300 foot wide access to the steep slopes, it would further improve the ability of wildlife to move through the area. Control of dogs is essential to the survival of wildlife in }winter conditions. Thank yo j; for the opportunity to continent. rt. Ad District Wildlife Manager 1 MAR 0 5 1996 Geo,li CLD COUNTY DI I'/11t I MI 1\11 O1 NAI 1111/A1 111 `.,1)11111:1 '; limes 1 ncirlte.;nl. I x1.1.1divu I )u l r tui WII1)1.11 I (,OMMI`iSION, /lrnnlrl Salo/di, (.11de!don • nehr.( cd I 11,111k, Vice Clriiirin;ln • M;iii 1 rV.rllr}' ';er.ir`huy .le.ssc 1 llnyd JI Motill)ei • William It 1lciIl)r.l9. Mr.inlrer • I;uner, It I Any, MI:II)1)RI • .101111 ';lull). Mcinlm, • I our, I Men11)cr • Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 300 Meadowood Dr. Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Phone (970) 963-2491 FAX (970) 963-0569 March 1, 1996 Mark Bean Garfield County Planner 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Los Amigos Ranch - Amended P.U.D/Sketch Plan 1 have reviewed the sketch plan for the Los Amogos Ranch P.U.D. and have met with Mr. Greg Boecker. 1 would offer the following comments regarding fire protection to the subdivision. Access throughout the subdivision appears to be adequate. All cul-de-sacs should be constructed with a minimum 50 foot radius. The proposed central water system will greatly improve the available fire flows throughout the subdivision. Response time to the subdivision is approximately 10 to 15 minutes with first response coming from Station No. 4, located on County Road 154. The developer will be required to enter into a contract with the District for the payment of development impact fees in the amount of $235.00 per lot as approved by the Garfield County Commissioners. 'Ibis payment is due prior to the recording of the final plat. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sine erely/ / .-r Bill Gavette Fire Marshal . -Fir '-:), Priii-N i --i''''') MAR 0 5 196 L1r1 Liii:. LI) CXt_1N'TY IN In!1'I l' ItPI'I.Ic lu. • • United States Department of the Interior BUM OF LANE) MANAGEMFNT (;lcnwuud Springs Resource Arca 50629 1ligltway 6 and 21 P.O. Box 1009 Glenwood Springs, Colormlo 81602 March 6, 1996 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department 109 8Lh StreeL - Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 87601. Dear: Mr. Bean: 1785g (7-880) t.ta_.,)FY In response to your request lora comments regarding the proposed Los Amigos Ranch amended Planned Unit_ Development (PUD) Sketch Plan, 1 offer the following statements for your scheduled March 13, 1996 public meeting. The southern edge of the 2206 acre tract is adjacent to public lands administered by this office. A vast portion of the adjacent BLM parcel has evolved over the past 20 years into an intensive Off. highway Vehicle use area with numerous trails and roads traversing it. With proposed housing slated to be built directly adjacent Lo BLM (80 single family units over 60 acres), there is an obvious need to consider more closely the future management of the BLM parcel. The proposed subdivision is expected to increase dispersed recreation on the adjacent public land. Increased OIIV use and related impacts could likely occur. The proposed network of streets within the high density single family homes includes a road that is directly adjacent to BL,M with no evident buffer of lots or open space between the PUD and public land. 1 am concerned that this proposed road location will merely provide an uncontrolled public access point to BLM when restrictions to vehicle access would seem to be the likely answer. 1 think it is vitally important that this parcel continue to be managed as open space, perhaps with some limitations placed on certain uses. Some obvious controls to consider would be a closure or limitation on vehicles and hunting. The increase in people and their likelihood to use the adjacent public land appears to warrant the meed for these restrictions. If this PUD amendment is approved, we would be willing to work with the proponent to develop and identify a solution to mitigate potential recreation and OHV use problems on the neighboring BLM land. 1 envision a strategy that could involve cooperative management by the BIM and developer (perhaps through the Homeowners Association) to resolve these likely use conflicts. Another important consideration for managing the 13LM as open space is Lo provide a big game movement corridor through the public lands between the Roaring Fork River and the upland mesa. The need for this travel corridor would seers evident given the development that has and will occur on the nearby private lands. After review of our records, it should be noted that there are various parcels within the PUD that have minerals reserved Lo the United States. The developer and the County should be aware that in the future, mining claims could be located and mineral leases or permits could be issued. Also, use of building stone, moss rock, gravel, or any other mineral material from lands with federal mineral ownership would require a permit from the ALM. According to our records, no minerals within the PUD are currently under lease. Furthermore, the potential for economic development of the leasable and locatable minerals in the vicinity, within the foreseeable future, is • • considered to be low. Any roads or utilities such as water, electric, phone or otherwise crossing BLM would require right-of-way (ROW) permits from this office. An environmental assessment report would be completed as a part of. the ROW permitting process. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If there are any questions, please contact Jim Byers of this office at 945-2341. Greg lioecker Manager, Los Amigos Ranch 2929 County Road 114 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Sincerely, 174,44..e,( 7A9-11ce-( Michael S. Mottice Area Manager STATE OF COLORADO • 111 Roy Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER John W. Mumma, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 March 4, 1996 Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Staff: REFER TO For Wildlife— For People It is generally accepted that from a wildlife standpoint, that a reduced footprint of human development lessens the impact on wildlife. In other words, multistory multi -family building has less impact. After reviewing the current proposal for changes to the Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D., it is my opinion that moving the proposed development back away from the rim of the plateau will reduce the disturbance to wildlife forced to winter on the steep southwest facing slopes. Whether or not this will offset the increased number of houses in the northwest portion of the P.U.D. is an interesting question. The developers wish to eliminate fences will improve the ease of wildlife movement through the development. If they would consider eliminating some lots at the ends of the open space corridors or situating the building envelopes to allow a 300 foot wide access to the steep slopes, it would further improve the ability of wildlife to move through the area. Control of dogs is essential to the survival of wildlife in winter conditions. Thank yo for the opportunity to comment. A•. s District Wildlife Manager 31AFIFWLD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Arnold Salazar, Chairman • Rebecca L. Frank, Vice Chairman • Mark LeValley, Secretary Jesse L. Boyd Jr., Member • William R. Hegberg, Member • James R. Long, Member • John Stulp, Member • Louis F. Swift, Member MAP—DE-1996 14:2.S ROARING FORK SCH.DIST. P.O1 • Roaring . c k hob 1 >©iutr ct RE -1 Box.82Q 140$ rand Avenue. Gien Sad'aprsn4L tblorado 81602-0820 Telephone (970) 945-6558 March 6, 1996 VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Building & Planning 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D. Dear Mark, DR. JAWS L. BADER, Supenntendent JAMES C. ;PHILLIPS, Assistant Supenntendent kiAri+i4N PELLAND, Budget Officer After reviewing the Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D. as amended, Roaring Fork School District (the District) has determined that the 13.4 acres designated as a school site will be adequate, and the District will accept such designation in lieu of impact fees. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions, Sincerely, Shannon Pelland Budget Officer TOTAL F.O1