Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 12.08.1997BOCC 12/8/97 1/5/98 2/9/98 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Planned Unit Development modification for Preshana Farms PUD. APPLICANT: Henry & Lana Trettin; Bruce Ross PLANNER: Land Design Partnership LOCATION: A tract of land located in Section 31, T7S, R87W of the 66' P.M.; located approximately three (3) miles east of Carbondale near Catherine's Store. SITE DATA: 57.889 Acres WATER: Shared well SEWER: Centralized treatment facility ACCESS: Direct access to County Road 100 EXISTING ZONING: PUD ADJACENT ZONING: North; South: A/R/RD East: C/L West: PUD I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject tract is identified by the Comprehensive Plan within the Low Density Residential (10+ acres/dwelling unit), Proposed Land Use District. However, the tract is the site of a previously approved Planned Unit Development with a gross density of 1.2 acres per dwelling unit. H. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The subject tract is 57.889 acres in size, located approximately three (3) miles east of Carbondale along County Road 100. The northern perimeter is bounded by State Highway 82 and bordered on the west by Ranch at Roaring Fork. The tract slopes gently toward the Roaring Fork River and a portion of the tract is identified within the floodplain of Blue Creek, a tributary to the Roaring Fork. Existing improvements include a primary residence, employee housing and indoor and outdoor equestrian facilities, with polo grounds. B. Adjacent Land Uses: The subject tract is in an area of varying land uses whereas Ranch at Roaring Fork PUD is located west of the tract, Catherine's Store is located east, with agricultural land uses adjacent to the east, south and north, across State Highway 82. C. Development Proposal: The applicant proposes to modify an earlier PUD approval authorizing 38 dwelling units and 10 lodging units within a bed and breakfast, with 30.6 acres of open space (gross density 0.66 dwelling units/acre). The current application proposes a total of 50 single family dwelling units and 4 employee units with 22.4 acres of open space (gross density of 0.93 dwelling units/acre). III REVIEW AGENCY/PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Town of Carbondale: The Town Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and reminds Garfield County of its Proposed Density Districts contained within the Comprehensive Plan and the vis'on of locating more dense developments closer to urban cores. See letter, pages ' • 10 . Mid -Valley Metropolitan District: States that negotiations are underway with the St. Finnbar property owners, as well as regional property owners for potential inclusion within the District, which, if included in the District, should assist in enhancing water quality. See letter, pages Hob . C. Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District: States access is adequate for fire equipment; notes that the fire flows would be meet the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and suggests that fire hydrants should be designed to meet the Code; impact fees must also be paid prior to recordation of the Final Plat. See letter, page D. Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District: Notes concerns for erosion and revegetation using weed -free seed; animal control; maintenance of irrigation ditches; impact to wetlands; irrigation ditches and water rights with irrigation water delivered utilizing a raw water delivery system within the PUD; and notes concern for application of pesticides and herbicides that may affect water quality, reques ing that monitoring wells be utilized to gauge water quality. See letter, pages 1 4S E. Division of Wildlife: Notes that many mammals and waterfowl utilize the property, especially within the riparian areas and stresses the need for allowing movement through the PUD for wildlife; stresses the need for dog control and makes several recomme dations concerning mitigation of impacts to wildlife. See letter, pages • F. Garfield County Attorney's Office: Identifies concern for the proposed centralized sewage treatment plant, recommending the system be contained within a special district controlled by those served by the treatment plant, which should be developed prior to preliminary plan application; suggests an engineering analysis indicate capacity of the proposed treatment plant and ability to serve the development; notes the plan should provide emergency access; the developers should show how the development would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; the homeowners should be the principal beneficiaries of the open space; suggests the applicants seek an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that would show conformity with the proposed density for the area; a phasing plan must be firmly identified; should resolve issues concerning open space and inclusion of the sewage tre tment plant into the Mid -Valley Metropolitan District. See letter, pages 1 rr , . G. Response to County Attorney's Letter from Land Design Partnership: Addresses Don DeFord's letter, explaining in further detail the issues discussed. See letter, pages 20.2 Letter from Zancanella and Associates. dated November 19, 1997: Explains in further� detail the legal and physical water supply for the PUD. See letter, pages 3� Letter from Jerry and Vicki Garwood. dated November 21. 1997: States their opposition to the PUD modifications, due to environmental and infrastructural concerns. See letter, page 3 Z. . IV MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Existing Planned Unit Development: The subject tract was approved for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), in 1989. At that time, the PUD proposed a total of 38 single family dwelling units, further divided into a Single Family District containing 15 units, a Cluster District of patio homes containing 11 units, and 10 employee units within the Equestrian District. A bed and breakfast, with capacity for 10 guests, and two additional dwelling units for the owner/manager of the development were approved for the Service Residential District. See land use breakdown maps and text., pages 314r.. The development was proposed to utilize a centralized equestrian facility and associated open space, which would also provide a buffer from State Highway 82. Water supply for the PUD was proposed to be provided by the Ranch at Roaring Fork's existing supply and capacity, or if no agreement could be reached, the water supply would be developed internally. Wastewater was proposed to be treated by the Ranch at Roaring Fork system also, which would have required modifications to the facility to provide the extra capacity. No service agreement was ever reached. B. Proposed Modifications to the PUD: The modifications seek to increase the residential density of the property, proposing a total of 54 dwelling units, placing 20 single family dwelling units within the R20 District and 30 single family units within the R10 District. Four additional dwelling units would be allowed within the Equestrian Center District, proposing three (3) employee units and an owner's/manager's residence. See land use breakdown maps and text, pages 34.34 The equestrian facilities would initially be owned by the applicant. However, according to the applicant's market research, apparently there would not be a desire for the homeowners to own the equestrian facility, therefore the applicant would continue to own it with the option to divest the facility in the future. Commensurate with this divestiture is the option to convert the remaining open space, which would be owned by the homeowners, into a par -3, executive golf course. It is not clear whether this provision would require the land encompassing the equestrian facilities. The physical water supply is proposed to be developed on-site, from groundwater contained within the Roaring Fork River alluvium, with a legal supply backed by Basalt Water Conservancy District contracts. Wastewater is proposed to be treated by a future centralized treatment plant, which would also serve additional development envisioned for the area. While this proposed treatment facility has received site application approval by Garfield County, there is no firm mechanism to ensure its completion and inclusion within the Mid -Valley Metropolitan District. In fact, the facility would be built to serve another contemplated subdivision (St. Finnbar), south of the Preshana site, and an affirmative decision in this matter would likely force development of the other property. Staff submits this situation defeats the notion of integrated planning, as the properties are not being considered together, yet would be tied together by proposed infrastructure. C. Staff Analysis: The land use concept is considered to be "very similar" to the approved PUD. However, based on a review of the approved PUD and the proposed modifications, staff cannot support that position. A side-by-side comparison follows: Single Family Dwellings Employee Housing Lodging Units Open Space (Open Space + Equestrian) Gross Density Approved 38 10 10 40.8 Acres 0.66 units/acre Modified % Change 51 34% increase 3 70% decrease 0 100% decrease 31.6 Acres 22.5% decrease 0.93 units/acre 41% increase Even if the bed and breakfast lodging units were allocated to single family dwelling units, the open space between the approved and modified proposals still diminishes, simply because more land would be developed. This comparison can be made graphically by viewing the maps on pages 351 3 7 According to the application, Preshana Farms is considered to be "one of the premiere equestrian facilities in Colorado." Although both proposals are in excess of the 25% open space requirement, if the equestrian values of the property are to be maintained, then reducing the open space would only serve to diminish the equestrian values. Further, the provision for an executive golf course would likely extinguish all equestrian activities, which currently seem to be a selling point for the property. V RECOMMENDATION This modification is reviewed consistent with Section 4.12 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, particularly, Section 4.12.03(2), whereas: 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 24-67-10-1, 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. It is this staff's opinion that the approval of the proposed modifications to the existing PUD plan would not be consistent with "the efficient development and preservation of the entire PUD," as required by regulations. Staff maintains, that approval of this request would "confer a special benefit upon [a] person" for the simple fact that the applicants' requested density increase results in Garfield County subsidizing the equestrian facilities, without any guarantee whatsoever that the equestrian facilities would remain operational. Additionally, the modifications to the PUD are not in the public interest, as the Goals of the Comprehensive Plan would not be met in the following areas: Housing: The employee housing (considered to be "affordable") would decrease from 10 units to 3 units, with the remaining housing priced to appeal to the upper -range of the housing market; the increased density and lot sizes results in the increased conversion of open space; Transportation: the increased density in the PUD will contribute to more traffic congestion on County Road 100 and State Highway 82; Commercial: The viability of the equestrian facilities currently occupying the site is not ensured and could readily be replaced by a less than exclusive golf operation, which may be even more of a commercial liability than the equestrian facilities; Recreation and Open Space: It would seem that initial sales within the PUD would be marketed to people who would be interested in utilizing the equestrian facilities and associated open spaces; however, these could be extinguished at the whim of the owner of the equestrian facilities, with the resulting golf course having absolutely no relationship to the former recreational and open space uses; Agriculture: A golf course would not, in any fashion, resemble the current equestrian and agricultural uses of the property; Water and Sewer Services: At this time, no wastewater services are ensured for either the new or old PUD; Natural Resource Extraction: The property very obviously overlies.the alluvium of the Roaring Fork Valley and the platting and development of the property would result in losing the aggregate resources underlying the property; Urban Areas of Influence: Although the site is not within the statutory urban area of influence of the Town of Carbondale, the Town has commented that the development encourages sprawl and is the antithesis of the Comprehensive Plan for Study Area I. Staff submits further that the provision for a par -3 golf course is incompatible with the equestrian uses of the PUD, which violates Section 4.06 of the PUD regulations. Based on many of these reasons, staff recommended to the Planning Commission denial of the PUD modifications. Contrary to this recommendation, the Planning Commission, with a vote of 5- 2, recommends approval of the modifications pursuant to the following conditions: 1] That the application conform to all current Planned Unit Development requirements and subdivision requirements concerning limitations on dogs and the "Aspen Glen" wood stove regulations. 2] That there shall be no more than 47 single family dwelling units and no more than three (3) employee housing. units. ] That all requirements contained in Don DeFord's letter shall be met, specifically the sewage disposal requirements. Depending on the Board's disposition in this matter, the Board is required to make specific findings, relative to its decision of approval or denial. In the event the Board accepts the Planning Commission's recommendation, staff suggests the following findings would be appropriate: SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at the hearing. 2. That all applicable regulations regarding a Zone District Amendment have been complied with including, but not limited to, Section 10.00 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 3. That the Planning Commission conducted a public meeting and recommended approval of modifications, to the Zone District Amendment, subject to certain conditions. 4. That the Planned Unit Development is in general conformity with the 1995 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan for Study Area I, as amended. 5. That the Planned Unit Development is consistent with Section 4.02 (Purposes and Objectives), 4.06 (Internal Compatibility) and Section 4.07 (Standards and Requirements) as contained in Section 4.00, inclusive, of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended and will implement the purposes of Section 4.07.01. 6. That, pursuant to Section 4.08.04, the uses by right, conditional uses, minimum lot area, maximum lot coverage, minimum setbacks, maximum height of buildings, and all other use and occupancy restrictions applicable to this Planned Unit Development shall be those which are approved by the Garfield County Commissioners, as contained herein. 7 In accordance with the provisions of Section 24-67-104, C.R.S., and Section 4.12.03(2) of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, the Board finds that the modifications, are consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire PUD, and do 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. Staff further recommends the following conditions of approval, in addition to the three (3) conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: 4. That there shall be no more than 50 dwelling units, total. These allocated in the following manner: S>✓d i o rnu - K 47 single family residential units (detached); h, s', 4ti 3 employee housing units. /f/ & NI r -S -re /4" QLvN' A 5. 2.6 c1 units shall be That a fully -executed contract from ths wastewater facilitpTaiepAfor _.a wastewater treatment facility serving the Preshana Farm PUD, shall be finalized no later than one (1) year from the date of conditional approval of the PUD modifications. That contract shall provide a mechanism by which the residents of the Preshana Farm PUD will participate in the operation of the wastewater facility. 6. Although Section 4.09.01 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution requires commencement of development within one (1) year of approval, the Board acknowledges that the provision for wastewater treatment service will likely require a waiver of this standard. Therefore, a subdivision preliminary plan must be submitted no later than 18 months from the date of approval of the PUD modifications. 7 If no such preliminary plan application is submitted, within the 18 month time period, the Board of County Commissioners shall hold a public hearing to determine the status of the PUD modifications and may, at that time, rescind its approval of the modifications, as well as the entire Preshana Farm PUD, consistent with Section 4.09.02 of the PUD regulations. All costs of said hearing shall be borne by the applicants. No specific phasing plan has been developed and contained within the application. Pursuant to approval conditions 5 and 6 above, securing wastewater treatment services shall constitute Phase I of the development. The subdivision lots and installation of infrastructure shall be platted, in a single phase, as Phase II of the development. 9. That the following changes shall be made to the noted zone districts: O.S. - Open Space District Golf course and golf course driving range shall be allowed as special uses. E.C. - Equestrian Center District Delete provision for single family dwelling, two-family and multi family dwellings and replace with employee housing units either attached or detached; delete provision for day nursery; indoor and outdoor golf driving range and clubhouse, etc., shall be allowed as special uses; delete allowances for athletic facilities and tennis courts. 10. That all zoning districts and uses allowed within the individual zone districts of the original Preshana Farms PUD are hereby repealed and replaced with the modifications contained within the present application, with the modifications noted above. 11. That the following sign types and specifications shall be allowed within the PUD: Open Space District: One (1) subdivision identification not to exceed 100 square feet; R10 District, one (1) subdivision identification not to exceed 50 square feet; one (1) real estate sign not to exceed 50 square feet. The Garfield County Zoning Resolution shall control in all other instances. 12. The provisions of the Zone District Regulations shall prevail and govern the development of Preshana Farms PUD provided, however, where the provisions of Preshana Farms PUD Zone District 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 Resolution of Garfield County, adopted April 23, 1984, whenever these regulations are applicable to the Preshana Farms PUD. i A4 SS Liz 44f,o ! z 14 110 .4,4. Cr.,t -41 4.6 Aeff na.1‘1 1- 1 ?fl3l1') rrmlrr6 5 0It, Ac, Ces, (^al s AP c v ( S ,4-r- rigE • r►. r1? '..r wino September 29, 1997 Town of Carbondale 511 Colorado Avenue Carbondale, CO 81623 Mr. Eric McCafferty Garfield County Building & Planning 109 East 8'h St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 RE: Preshanna Farms PUD Tl....- C-;... -1k..a: _.a.%.. (970) 963-2733 FAX (970) Thank you for giving the Town of Carbondale the opportunity to respond to the PUD Zoning Amendment for Preshanna Farms. The Carbondale Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at their September 25th meeting and they unanimously directed me to write the following letter. The primary issue is that the PUD Zoning for Preshanna a_ well as the Saint Finbar project and the related wastewater treatment facility are not in conformance with the land use densities of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. The Plan designates this area as Low Density Residential and provides for 10 plus acres per dwelling unit. It is no secret that the property owners between the Ranch ,cam' }i, Roaring Fork and the Dakota Project have had discussions with the Mid Valley Metropolitan District for provision of water and wastewater services and may propose a considerable up -zoning in terms of densities. The Carbondale Planning & Zoning Commission stronai recommends that there be a discussion regarding what is the appropriate density from the Ranch at Roaring Fork to the county boundary. We actually thought that this discussion and analysis had been held earlier during the recent County Comprehensive Plan approval process. Discussing. properties from the Ranch at Roaring Fork to the county boundary on an individual_ basis takes away from neighboring property owners as well as the public at large the ability to examine and comment appropriately on what may be a significant change for this area. It would also dilute the ability of the general public to discuss the positive and negative aspects of any proposed change to the land use classifications for the Cotnprehensive Plan in this area. With the skyrocketing cost of housing, higher densities may be appropriate but this discussion has not yet taken place in a public forum. Please remember that Garfield County. Glenwood Springs 'and the Town of Carbondale have gotten to,2ether a few times over this past year to discuss land use planning on a cooperative basis. What came out of these discussions was a proposal to have relatively dense urban cores with an urban growth boundary for the towns in the area beyond which development would be rural in nature. Installation of urban services and a significant up P 9- zoning from the Ranch ( Roaring Fork to the county boundary seems inconsistent with these discussions. As you can see. Carbondale's discussion was much more centered on the "macro" issues of this proposal as opposed to the specifics. The only other suggestion the Town of Carbondale has to offer is to point out that the zoning text for the PUD does not put any restriction on the number of single family dwellings or the number of multi -family dwellings in the Equestrian District. This would result in a conflict with the land use summary chart as provided in the application. Once again. thank you for letting. Carbondale comment on this proposal. Please call me if you wish to discuss any of the issues in this letter. The Carbondale Planning Commission would also welcome a meeting with the Garfield County Planning Commission to discuss '• larger any of U. $e l �. issues. Sincere CA_ c Michael Hassig. Chairman Carbondale Planning & Zoning Commission 970) 3 5-1CC- FAX (9 0) 945-5948 Sr' SC-MUESE. GCRDCN ',1EY_R ENGINEERS SURVEYORS September 30, 1997 Mr. Eric McCafferty Garfield County Planning Department 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RE: Preshana Farms PUD Rezoning and Sketch Plan Mid Valley Metropolitan District Dear Eric: 118 West 6th, Suite 200 7g Gie^wrif+ {mac' ,.}� 81601 �•- 1\ s•4:-.---- ,CT 1 15!= �1 A..:: .,1 'ice ,-,DC Com.; 4 c.c.t- The purpose of this letter is to comment, as the engineer for the Mid Valley Metropolitan District (MVMD), on the above-mentioned application. As you may know, the Mid Valley Metropolitan District has entered into discussions with the Cerise property about pre -inclusion and annexation. As part of this discussion, the District has met on a more regional basis with the adjoining landowners in this area, including the St. Finnbar property, to discuss regional wastewater treatment needs. The District and the property owners have discussed that the District would become the owner and management agency for the St. Finnbar wastewater treatment facility. The District believes it is in the best interest of their existing constituents, as well as new homeowners of these properties to be included within the District. The Board of Directors of the MVMD has supported this concept and has directed staff to continue working with the landowners to structure this arrangement. As part of this arrangement, the District believes that all the wastewater collection lines should be designed as a part of the regional district, rather than just that specific development. The second reason the District supports this concept is that better control of water quality issues can be maintained. For instance, the Town of Carbondale and MVMD facilities have recently been notified that their wastewater discharges may contain an effluent limitation for ammonia. This is a new standard which previously had not been required. One of the justifications from the State Health Department for this ammonia limitation included growth in the area and expansions to facilities from Basalt, MVMD, St. Finnbar, Carbondale and Aspen Glen. The District believes that, if they are the owner and operator of this facility, they can better control the water quality issues of the Roaring Fork River. One of the main goals and objectives of the MVMD is protection of the Roaring Fork River quality and, as such, supports the concepts of regionalization and management through a District. The concept of providing water service to this area from the District, although discussed, has not been given much consideration at this time. This concept, however, should be thoroughly discussed and considered as part of the regional District discussions. September 30, 1997 Mr. Eric McCafferty Page 2 Finally, should this property be included within the District, the District would like to improve the communication with Garfield County staff. For instance, on the recently -completed Dakota Meadows project, which was the first project within the District and Garfield County, the project had actually received Final Plat approval from the County, yet, at the same time, did not have final approvals for water and sewer drawings from the District. This created platting problems which, to this day, are unresolved. Secondly, the Subdivision Improvements Agreement between Garfield County and Dakota Meadows and, specifically, the Letter of Credit was reduced for Dakota Meadows without consent of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. In the District's mind, the water and sewer lines were not complete and yet, the Letter of Credit was reduced. This created a situation where homeowners were actually receiving Certificates of Occupancy, yet the water and sewer lines were not complete and still have not been approved by MVMD. The District works very cooperatively with both Eagle County and the Town of Basalt, and believes as further development occurs in Garfield County, the same relationship may exist. The MVMD staff would be more than happy to sit down with Garfield County staff to resolve these issues. On behalf of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District, we would like to thank you fcr the chance to be a referral agency on this application. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. `Louis Meyer, P.E. LM:lc/1 501 C97 cc: Mid Valley Metropolitan District Lee Leavenworth, Esq. l SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC Carbcrde]e rm3 Fire Frcieci5cri September 16, 1997 Eric McCafferty Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Preshana Farms PUD Rezoning & Sketch Plan Eric: �• 1, -,r: _ ! -i . 'iGl as cwood Drive •, ;a =, ^�� _Catiantl C0 81623 IWO) 563-2481 moio 1 91997 F 1t?) _.Y I have reviewed the sketch plan proposal for the Preshana Farms PUD and would offer the following comments. Access The proposed road layout and access to the development is adequate for fire apparatus. Water Supplies Water supplies for fire protection are proposed to be supplied via a combination gravity and direct pumping system. The proposed storage is approximately 150,000 gallons with a proposed fire flow of 1000 gallons per minute. It is proposed that residences in excess of 3500 square would be required to be sprinkiered. This is consistent with the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) - Appendix III -A. The spacing and distribution of fire hydrants in the development should meet the requirements of UFC- Appendix III -B. L , :c Feer The developer will be required to enter into an agreement with the District for the payment of development impact fees. This payment is due prior to the recording of the final plat. Fees are based upon the per lot impact fee adopted by the District at the time the agreement is executed. Please call if you have any questions. Sin 1 Bill Gavette Fire Marshal MOUNT SOPRIS SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT P.O. BOX 1302 GLENWOCD SPRINGS, CO 81602 i-'-,. -- r--• - , _____i_....z_c___, 1, , , 0 . y, J.., j,. SEP 1:x:1997; I : -,i J September 15, 1997 GAF -CELE) COUNTY Eric McCafferty Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Sir, At the regular monthly meeting of the Mount Scpris Soil Conservation District, the Board reviewed the application and plan for the Preshana Farm Subdivision and have the following comments and concerns about the project. Any cuts for roads cr construction should be revegetated to prevent erosion. Weed free seed and mulch should be used for any reseeding cf the area. Monitoring of all seeding should be done to see if the grass is establishing or if weeds are becoming a problem. Reseeding or weed control practices should be implemented if a problem is noticed. The board is always concerned about animal control in an area where there is the potential for conflict between wildlife or domestic livestock and dogs from the subdivision. Dogs running in packs of two or more can maim or kill domestic livestock and wildlife. The District recommends animal control regulations be adopted in the covenants for the subdivision and that they be enforced. Of prime concern to the Board, is the proper maintenance and protection of any irrigation ditch which is on the site. New landowners should be informed that the ditch owners have right of Way easement to maintain the irrigation system, that they will be cleaning and working on the ditch, and that this work may be in their yards. The district would like to know what the impact will be on the Wetlands in this area? All Wetlands should be protected and remain in as pristine condition as possible. The Board recommends that any irrigation water rights be used by the landowners so they are maintained. In order to use these rights, a raw water delivery system could be used for landscape, fire protection, open space, etc. If at all possible, this system should be incorporated into the infa-structure of the subdivision plans as it would be more cost efficient at this time. Their concern is always for soil and water conservation and preservation and plans should consider these concerns. Drainage has the potential to be a problem in the area and engineering recommendations for control of drainage should be closely followed by the builder and/or homeowner. They felt that any disturbance of soil could adversely affect other landowners, and'great care should be taken to mitlgate as many of the problems as possible which arise when building on an alluvial fan deposit area. With increased concerns about Water Quality, the District is concerned about monitoring chemical application for fertilizer, weed control, and other pest management reasons. Their concern is the chemicals that will be used to fertilize grasses and control weeds in the area. They feel that the chemicals should be closely monitored in this area due to the possibility that the chemicals will soak into the soils and run off into the creeks. The District suggests drilling of wells to monitor ground water pollution, and that this expense and future expenses should be bore by the developer. Sincerely, �vt7� Scott bodero, President Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District .�r STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor DE?ARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER John Mumma, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 90216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 9-14-97 Garfield County Planning 109 8th St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Eric: ),......_ ____—__ ____,___ id11' :Z ,_ , 8 1997 I ,r_ C ,RF€LD COUNTY REFER TO GNOF For Wildlife - Forldlife- For People I have reviewed the Preshana Farm PUD rezoning and sketch plan. Preshana's main value to wildlife is the riparian and wetlands along the southern boundary and Blue Creek. This habitat type is extremely valuable to many species of wildlife from mule deer, red fox, coyote, raccoon, mink, waterfowl, raptors, owls, and a variety of small mammals and neotropical birds (songbirds). Waterfowl will nest along the riparian area'and wetlands as well as cavity nesters, raptors, and owls utilizing the cottonwoods for nest and perching sites. The area does contain a small resident population of mule deer which utilize the riparian corridor from the Roaring Fork River to Blue Creek and the southern end of Preshana. In addition, there is a mule deer crossing area just to the west of Preshana and deer will utilize the easement area between the Ranch at Roaring Fork and Preshana. Impacts to wildlife should be minimal as long as a movement corridor is provided, there is protection of the riparian/wetland area, and dogs are controlled. The proposal stated that pets will be restricted by protective covenants but it does not state what are those restrictions. Protective covenants generally do not work for pet control as there is little enforcement, neighbors do not like to turn in neighbors, and they can be changed by a majoity vote. Roaming and uncontrolled dogs will have a major negative impact to wildlife in this area. Waterfowl nesting and use of the riparian areas will be disrupted. The Crown which is south of the property is critical winter range for mule deer and elk and roaming dogs would have easy and close access to this area resulting in chasing and harassment of wintering animals, displacement to less suitable habitat, direct and indirect mortality, etc. It is important that there be dog control; but as a condition of approval and not through protective covenants. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Arnold Salazar, Chairman • Rebecca L. Frank, Vice -Chairman • Mark LeValley, Secretary Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., Member • Chuck Lewis, Member • James Long, Member Louis F. Swift, Member • John Stulp, Mernber The following recommendations will help to minimize impacts to wildlife: 1. Maintain homesite locations outside of south open space area along Blue Creek. Homesites be located on bench above the creek as currently planned but with a minimum setback of 25' - 50' from back lot line. There should be no home or deck overhang to riparian/wetland area. 2. Maintain cottonwoods and dead snags along this riparain corridor. If some of the trees become a safety hazard they should be trimmed or topped and not fully cut down. A minimum 2-5 snags/acre should be maintained.. 3. 1 dog/home with a kennel restriction. Kennel be constructed before C.O. is issued. 4. Fencing - There should be no fencing in the southerly riparian/wetland open space area or within the western open space easement between the Ranch at Roaring Fork and Preshana. All other fencing outside of the equestrian facilities be 42", 4 strand or less barb or smooth wire with a 12" kickspace between the top 2 strands. Any rail fencing be the round or split rail type, 48", 3 rail or less with at least 18" between 2 of the rails. This is especially important to R-20 lots 1-11 and R-10 lots 1-10. 5. Bring the south boundary fence along Blue Creek into compliance with fencing recommendations from its current mesh wire state. 6. All utilities be buried or made raptor proof to prevent electrocution of raptors, owls, and eagles. 7. No horse grazing within the southern open space area along Blue Creek (riparain/wetland area) All homeowners should be made aware'that deer and perhaps an occassional elk may cause damage to their ornamental and landscaping plants, The DOW is not liable for this damage. In addition, deer or elk may die on their property and the homeowner will need to properly dispose of the carcass. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Kevin Wrig District W dlife Manager Carbondale GARFIELD COUNTY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 109 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601-3303 Telephone (970) 945-9150 Fax No. (970) 945-7785 MEMO TO: ERIC McCAI`l`ERTY, PLANNER FROM: DON K. DEFORD RE: PRESHANA FARM P.U.D. DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 1997 After initial review of the submittal for the Preshana Farm P.U.D., I have the following comments: 1. While the plan identifies a method of sewage disposal (St. Finnbar Sewage Treatment Plant), that method presumes that the Board will have previously approved both the St. Finnbar Development Plan, as well as state and local approval for the St. Finbar Sewage Treatment Facility. Additionally, the plan identifies no guarantee mechanism for obtaining service from St. Finnbar or a method of service that will have some control by the homeowners of the Preshana Farm P.U.D. My recommendation is that the Board require that the central sewage system serving the Preshana Farm P.U.D. be contained within a special district controlled by those served by the treatment plan. This should occur prior to the submittal of the preliminary plan. Additionally, the Board should require the current approval of the St. Finnbar developers to the plan proposed by the Preshana Farm developers, as well as an engineering report indicating the capacity of the St. Finnbar plant and its ability to serve the development proposed for Preshana Farm. 2. The P.U.D. plan should identify emergency access for the cul de sac road servicing the Preshana Farm P.U.D. 3. The developers should identify the manner in which the equestrian center, anit apparent commercial use, is consistent with the comprehensive plan recommendations. 4. The identified open space contains potential commercial uses which may not be for the primary benefit of the homeowners of the Preshana Farm P.U.D. Both equestrian and other uses of the open space must be limited to the use of the homeowners, or the manner in which it is to be for their primary benefit, must be identified. • If° Memo to Eric McCafferty, Planner From Don K. DeFord, Esq. September 25, 1997 Page 2 5. In regard to the comprehensive plan density requirements, this P.U.D. would not seem to comply, requiring an amendment to the comprehensive plan prior to or as part of the P.U.D. approval process. Such an amendment may be obtainable based on a variety of factors, but as demonstrated by the Sunlight View application, general conformity with the comprehensive plan is required. Additionally, I do not believe this property is zoned for 1.2 acres per dwelling unit. That would be a unique zoning within Garfield County. 6. Any phasing plan anticipated for this project needs to be proposed and put in place at this time. Otherwise, the County will assume that the regulations will control and the property will commence development within one year from the date of the approval of the P.U.D. 7. The issues concerning open space and sewage treatment should be resolved at this time. I have spoken with the attorney for the Mid -Valley Water and Sanitation District concerning inclusion of the St. Finnbar plant in its area. That matter is currently under active consideration by that district. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. DKD:vlm LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP 918 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-2246 / Fax 970-945-4066 December 1, 1997 Eric McCafferty, Planner Garfield County Planning. Department 109 Eight Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Preshana Farm Planned Unit Development Dear Eric: :EC 0 2 1997 !! CARF cC& +^( The following information is offered to assist the Board of County Commissioners with their review of the proposed modification of the Preshana Farm PUD. Specifically, I will respond to the items listed in your letter reviewing the action of the Planning. Commission on October 8, 1997. 1] We do not have the specific language regarding limitations on dogs and wood stove regulations as established by the `Aspen Glen" approval but we know these are standard criteria for the County and they would appear to be consistent with the concept of the Preshana Farm PUD. Eric, can you provide me with_the appropriate fang mmQe for our vie Z] At the Planning Commission meeting, I requested input from the commission members regarding the design result that they desired to achieve by the reduction in the number of dwellings units. From their comments throughout the discussion,it appears there was a desire to see a net increase in the total dedicated open space. We will be prepared to discuss with the Board alternatives for the achievement of this intent. 3] The Board should be aware that at the time of the writing of Don Deford's letter, he did not understand that Preshana Farm was an existing PUD. Mr. DeFord's letter is discussed as follows: 1. Two alternatives are now available for wastewater treatment. The selection of an alternative is strongly influenced by the St. Finnbar Land Company which would provide the treatment plant site for one of the alternatives. Wastewater treatment will be provided by either: a. An agreement with the St. Finnbar Land Company to provide services if they construct a new treatment plant on their site. This plant would be administered by a newly created Special Services District or by the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. On October 21, 1997 the Mid Valley Metropolitan District•Board of Directors authorized the drafting of a pre -inclusion agreement that would encompass service to Preshana Farm and St. Finnbar Farm and the ownership and maintenance of the proposed treatment plant. The Site Application for this plant is currently being reviewed by the State Department of Health. Prior to submittal of the Preshana Farm Preliminary Subdivision Plan, an application will be made by the Mid Valley Metro District to expand its service boundaries or an application will be made to create a new special services district to encompass Preshana Farm and St. Finnbar Farm. b. An agreement with the Ranch at Roaring Fork to provide wastewater treatment services. The property owners within the Ranch at Roaring Fork have recently voted to allow their Board of Directors to negotiate sewer and water service agreements with users outside of the Ranch boundaries. Discussions are being initiated with Ranch Board of Directors to establish such an agreement for provision of services to Preshana Farm. An agreement between Preshana Farm and the Ranch at Roaring Fork would be in place before submittal of a preliminary subdivision plan. This topic was briefly discussed by the Commission, but no specific point was made about where or how an emergency access should be connected to the cul-de- sac. Due to the flat terrain of the site and the proposed oversized cul-de-sac, we do not feel the emergency access is necessary. The Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District in their review letter of September 16, 1997 confirmed that the proposed access was adequate for their needs. We are willing to discuss this with the Board but I do not think this was a critical issue to the Planning Commission. 3. The current Preshana Farm PUD has commercial uses of a recreational character in the form of an equestrian center. The proposed modifications preserve this commercial recreational use and proposes an additional option in the form of a golf course. The golf course concept could only occur if the residents of the PUD determine to make their open space lands available for such use. The Equestrian District and the limited Open Space attached to it is probably not enough acreage to accommodate even a small executive course. The expanded commercial use, in the form of an executive, par -3 golf course, is very much in the control of the home owner's association. The Comprehensive Plan indicates the desire to encourage commercial recreation uses and the proposed commercial recreation uses are consistent with the historic use and setting. of the site. 4. The residents of the PLT) are clearly the beneficiaries of the majority of the open space. As stated in the application, 17.4 acres of the Open Space District (30% of the PhD) will be dedicated to the home owner's association. This land is under their full ownership and control with one limitation. If a commercial operator of the equestrian center offers priority equestrian services to the residents, they will be obligated to make the pasture land portions of their open space available for 2 equine use. All other use of the open space is determined by the residents. An additional five acres of the Open Space District is proposed to be attached to the Equestrian Center District to provide space for equestrian activities. The Open Space District represents 39 percent of the total PUD. If we consider the Equestrian Center District to be quasi -open space, dedicated open space and quasi -open space represents 55 percent of the Preshana Farm PUD. 5. This comment reflects Don's original misunderstanding about the currently existing Preshana Farm PUD. I believe the Planning Commission determined that a change to the comprehensive plan was not necessary except to correct the error in the comp plan mapping. 6. Don thought it might be necessary to provide an initial phase that allowed adequate time for the initiation of the special services district. With this in mind. the Applicant requests, as an initial phase of development, one year from the date of the PUD modification approval until submittal of the preliminary plan is required. 7. Both of these issues are addressed above. Also attached herewith is a revised letter from Tom Zancanella which provides the calculation used for the application to the Basalt Water Conservation District. This letter provides for a portion of each lot to be irrigated from existing raw irrigation water supplies rather than all lot irrigation coming from the domestic water system as was portrayed in the original letter. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance with this process. Sincerely, Ronald B. Liston 3 -.22 dew P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 /\<\ ZANC4NELLA ANO ASSOC14TE5, INC. El1GINEESINC CONSULTANTS November 19, 1997 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Preshana Farms P.U.D. - Water Supply Investigations Dear Mark: (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax Attached for your review is the Basalt Water Conservancy District application for the prcposed Preshana Farms P.U.D. The Preshana Farms P:U.D is to be located in the Catherine Store area just east of Carbondale, Colorado. The attached Basalt Water Conservancy District contract will provide for up tc 54 single family residences and an equestrian center. We have converted the future .ries to EQRs to provide flexibility in future planning. We have included 2 EQRs to server the commercial uses associated with the equestrian center. We have assumed that these 54 single family units ( 51 residences and 3 employee units) and the commercial EQRs will each be occupied by 3.5 people using 100 gallons of water per person per day. Water will be diverted to irrigate up to 2,500 ft2 of lawn at each residence. We have also included 30 livestock units in the water service plan. Table 1 presents the diversions and consumptive use for the proposed Preshana Farms P.U.D. As can be seen from Table 1, the subdivision will ,divert on the average 31.61 AF, and consumptively use 8.01 AF. The peak month of June would require a continuous diversion average diversion of 30.5 gpm. The Subdivision is located within area A of the Basalt District and will be eligible for the Basalt District temporary exchange plan approved by Garfield County and the Colorado Division of Water Resources, until such time as the augmentation plan moves through water court. We have reviewed the local geology for the possibility of available water in the Preshana Farms P.U.D. area. We estimate the Roaring Fork Alluvium is approximately 40 or more feet thick in this location. It is our opinion that water should be obtainable within the Roaring Fork Alluvium and/or adjacent Quaternary terrace. The Preshana Farms P.U.D. proposes to construct test wells to fully evaluate the water supply for the proposed Preshana Farms P.U.D. The test drilling program will be completed prior to the submission of the preliminary plat. In addition, pump testing of the test wells will be completed with a minimum continuous testing period of 24 hours on one well. Water samples will also be collected for quality analysis at an independent laboratory. Water quality tests will be performed based on Colorado Department of Health community water supply requirements. Supplemental Irrigation will be supplied to the P.L.D. through the Basin Ditch to the extent water is available. Based on the above information we believe that a water supply can be developed to serve the Preshana Farms P.U.D. If you have any questions, please call our Glenwood Springs office at 945-5700. Very truly yours, Zancanella and Associates, Inc. A- 7_, ,L 1 Thomas A. Zancanella, P.E. President cc: Ron Liston L: \974201G a r. ttr.wp d APPLICATION FOR WATER ALLOTMENT CONTRACT BASALT WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT 1. Applicant's Name(s): Bruce Ross Address: P.0. Box 935, Basalt, CO 81621 Telephone Number: (970) 977_0313 • 2. Type of land use (development) proposed for water allotment contract: (i.e. single family home, subdivision, gravel pit, etc.) PUD subdivision Legal description of property on which District 5 water rights and/or Ruedi Reservoir contract water shall bo used; Quarter Quarte, Section, Township, Range (attach map) ": see attached 4. Elevation zone of property X 6-7,000 ft. _ 7-8,000 ft. 8-9,000 ft. 5. Name and legal description of water supply diver;ion point(s); include Quarter Quarter, Section, Township, Range. bearing and distance from nearby Section corner. (Identify if well, spring, pipeline, etc.) If diversion point is a well, please provide the State Permit No. AppalnnGa Wp11. Arahian Wp11, Pinta Wp11, SP. Attached Exhibit A for legal descriptions;( 6. Has Applicant applied with the Water Court for water rights, change of water rights and/or a water right plan for augmentation?yes 1 , no; If yes, .what is the Water Court Case No. 7. Proposed waste water treatment system: (pleas() chock) X Tap to central waste water treetmi3nt facility Septic tank/leachfield system Evapotranspiration system Other: 8. Proposed use of water: (please check) X X • Domestic/Municipal (single family home(s),duplex(s),condominium(s), mobile home(s), apartment, hotel). Please complete page two of this application. Commercial (office, warehouse, restaurant, bar, retail). Please complete page three of this application. Industrial (gravel pit, manufacturing). Please complete page three of this application. Agricultural (crop irrigation, stock watering). Please complete page four of this application. Date on which the county or other applicable governmental entities approved the land use for which you seek legal water service: pending . (Note: Copy of the Resolution or other documentation evidencing such approval should be submitted with application. The undersigned acknowledges receipt of the District's form Water Allotment contract and agrees (}a4 . this Appli tion is made pursuant to the term and conditions thereof. gnature Basalt Water Conservancy District Water Allotment Application Page' Two Please complete this page if you checked domestic/municipal use on Page 1, No. 8. DOMESTIC/MUNICIPAL WATER USES In -House Single-family residential home(s), Number of units: 54 Duplex(s) see attached table Number of units: Condominium(s) Number of units: Hotel/Apartment Number of units (rooms): Mobile Home(s) Number of units: Irrigation (lawns, parks, open space) Total area to be irrigated 2500/unitsq. ft. or 3 • 10 acres Type of irrigation system: (please check) X Sprinkler Flood (irrigation ditch) Domestic stock watering (cattle, horses) Number of animals: 30 Period of use (months): Other domestic/municipal uses not listed: Water Allotment Application Page Three Please complete this page if you chocked commercial or industrial use on Page 1, No. 8. COMMERCIAL WATER USES In -House Office(s), square footage: 2 EQR's (1 office) Warehouse/distributor, square footage: Retail, square footage: Restaurant, number of seats: Bar, number of seats: Irrigation (lawns, parks, open space) 2500 ft2EQR Total area to be irrigated sq. ft. or 0. 1 1 acres Type of irrigation system: (please check) Sprinkler Flood (irrigation ditch) Other Commercial Usos Not Listed: 2 bathrooms at the equestrian center INDUSTRIAL WATER USES Please describe your industrial development in some detail: N/A Irrigation (lawns, parks, open space) Total area to be irrigated sq. ft. or acres Type of irrigation system: (please check) Sprinkler Flood (irrigation ditch) Basalt Water Conservancy District Water Allotment Contract Application Page Four Please complete this page if you checked agricultur)I use on Page 1, No. 8. Irrigation AGRICULTURAL WATER USE N/ A Type of crop(s) (pasture,alfalfa, beans, etc.) and irrigation system: Crop Acres _ Sprinkler; Flood Crop Acres _ Sprinkler; _ Flood Crop Acres — Sprinkler; Flood Crop Acres _ Sprinkler; — Flood Stock Watering (cattle, horses) Number of animals: Months of use: Other agricultural uses not listed: r" )CZ Preshana Farms P.U.D. Estimated Water Requirements N n. C m 7 `u c a u` m c c rn m 0 0 0 0 0OR O O O O O o vi o ui o n CI • O m T g fvi m` a F (n U o m> o c E E w w c d U °- c • Z U V V ° m _ N A ... N V c • c , n O— c > > a ° < 'c o U 0. 0 - CI N 3C o in o o O °) N f') O— N aO Q7• N N ,- n c Water Use Calculations i, r DiversionRequlrements'; .> _.,1: it+;:.1.44,,i; •.s 1, ., 0'1!!r .e ; ,r, t. k•ConsurnpliveUse ,i,e:-lta+ris St?'`:;.(.til,.` ' 9^1( (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) Domestic Commercial Dom\Comm Open Space Live- Average Domestic Commercial Dom\Comm Open Space Live- Average In-house In-house Irrigation Irrlgatlon stock Total Flow In-house In-house Irrigation Irrigation stock Total Flow (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) ' (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (gpm) (ac -it) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -It) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (gpm) 1.798 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.043 1.91 13.9 0.090 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.14 1.0 1.624 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.039 1.72 13.9 0.081 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.12 1.0 1.798 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.043 1.91 13.9 0.090 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.14 1.0 1.740 ' ' 0.06 0.29 0.00 0.041 2.13 16.1 0.087 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.04 0.33 2.5 1.798 0.07 1.74 0.00 0.043 3.64 26.6 0.090 0.00 1.22 0.00 0.04 1.35 9.9 1.740 0.06 2.19 0.00 0.041 4.04 30.5 0.087 0.00 1.53 0.00 0.04 1.67 12.6 1.798 0.07 2.08 0.00 0.043 3.98 29.1 0.090 0.00 1.45 0.00 0.04 1.59 11.6 1.798 0.07 1.35 0.00 0.043 3.26 23.8 0.090 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.04 1.08 7.9 1.740 0.06 1.14 0.00 0.041 2.99 22.5 0.087 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.04 0.93 7.0 1.798 0.07 0.37 0.00 ' 0.043 2.27 16.6 0.090 0.00 0.26 0.00 0 04 0.39 2.9 1.740 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.041 1.85 13.9 0,087 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.13 1.0 1.798 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.043 1.91 13.9 0.090 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 Q.14 1.0 21.168 0.78 9.16 0.00 0.50 31.61 19.56 1.06 0.04 6.41 0.00 0.50 8.01 4.94 t 'E C ] Lv ,- `= TN ^.0 d I c n. A ja:Ea Ed 4` va F. ° 3 E. LL a v o v N Z ❑ Glenwood Springs, CO 2 0 m Job# 97420 EXHIBIT A Proposed Well locations for Preshana Farms P.U. D : Each of the proposed wells is located in SE quarter of the NW quarter of Section 31, Township 7 South, Range 87 West, of the 6'h P.M. Appaloosa Well 1825 feet from the north line 2147 feet from the west line Located at a point whence the Northwest corner o Section 31 bears North 4007'19" West for a distance of 2806 feet Arabian Well 1714 feet from the north line 1918 feet from the west line Located at a point whence the Northwest corner o Section 31 bears North 41°33'11" West for a distance of 2562 feet. Pinto Well 1579 feet from the north line 2040 feet from the west line Located at a point whence the Northwest corner o Section 31 bears North 37°28'30" West for a distance of 2569.5 feet. see file 963C6/servarea2.dwg in the image files for details 7/25X ff1 R' i) 68 48 r ' n P P P u 7 • II 3 X 6265 /// ....,............_......./..-••••••••••....,... 6269 /1 1 _till 7049 Thy 29 A • • T JV ' • RANCH AT RCARING FORK'. \ H{"y 82-(1 :';• 1 6;CA. THEi21NE STCR` PRESNANA BLUE CREEK RANCH N . =-I • • : 3 6 I I •:. .4 7.. TO CARBONDALE • .a214 • �67c2 �J 1=s�=:dam 'syr as 77( _\; .ry e — VIC] Nil � �)/Ji/, /ALC I •m''' /�' 17240 November 21, 1997 Board of County Commissioners 109 8th Street Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, Colorado Re: Henry & Lana Trettin and Bruce Ross request fcr zoning change. Hearing: 2:00 p.m. on December 8, 1997 Dear Commissioners: PEN% NO'J 25 1997 GAVEL=NV As I am unable to attend the hearing scheduled, I wo old like to voice my opposition to the proposed PM modification. My concern is that the valley continues to build more and more homes and it appears to me that it is being done without considering the impact on the envirotanent and the existing infrastructure. Highway 82 is maxed out as everyone knows. There are some 500 homes being built in El Jebel next to City Market. St Finnabar is on the planning table which is d.Lrectly adjacent to this proposed site. Is the state going to allow these developments to build their own seg Ter systems? I have read in several articles published in the Glenwood Post and Aspen Times that the state was going to put an end to the growth of individual sewer systems. People who would buy homes here would most likely work in the Aspen-Snowmass area and as I mentioned earlier, Highway 82 cannot handle any more cars znd won't be able to in the foreseeable future. Besides the issue of congestion, there is the issue of ai r pollution. There are many other questions that need to be studio d before we allow this growth to continue. Are we going to allow an investor's greed. to destroy why we lave chosen to live in this valley. The beauty of open space and a clean environment need to be prottcted or else we are going to turn this valley into another Southern Cllifornia. People will move on to other places if they have to spend 3 hours commuting to work We moved here to escape that life style and it frightens me to see it get any worse that it is now. We are destroying the down valley to service a town that will not allow growth which would destoy its marketability in the ski industry. Please protect our open spaces and don't let growth g) on unchecked as to what our infrastructure can handle. Sincerely. l Jerry and Vicki Garwood CO. ROAO 100 1• •I 2 �' / i / f' / 1• , S 1' Lrrf 1 l / • / U / 1' 7 �. / C/) I / C7' /// 1 CO. ROAD 100 r•� / a / 7 . J 351- PUD MASTER PLAN ,q ,o ?V• 1: o 67' Jy e a z u i o ti a c ivHX,01 C<r F v ¢ g 163; / PRESEPNA FARM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LAND • USE SUMMARY Revised 8-02-89 •ri:,'`c;•,:s4•.'0f.at„'aSd76)?"AiS�?;:-" __,� DWELLING ACRES " % CF UNITS PUD Cren Space District 30.6 52.85. EQUESTRIAN C iI'LR DIST. (EMplcyee Housing) 10 10.2 17.62 SIN(TT F. FAMILY DISTRICT 15 10.9 18.83 CLUSTER HOUSING DISTRICT 11 3.6 6.22 SE VICE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT EW T T,TNG UNITS 2 2.6 4.49 LODGING UNITS 10 (by Special Use Review) TOTAL CWS",",TVG UNITS TOTAL LODGING UNITS . GROSS DENSITY(Cwelling Units) .66 Units/Acre 38 57.9 10 100.00 CO. ROAD 'CO CO. ROAO 100 FRESHANA'ARM PUD L,ND USE SUAMARY 7.24!9! Cwellino Units Cpen Space District Equestrain Center District R20 - Single Family Residential District R10 - Single Family Residential District Road Right -of -Way 4 20 30 Acres % of FUD 22.4 39% 9.2 16% 12.2 21% 8.9 15% 5.2 9°'a TOTAL PUD 54 57.9 Gress Density of Total PUD 0.9 UNITS/ACRE 1.1 ACRES/UNIT Net Density of Residential Districts 2.4 . UNITS/ACRE 1 C0% 1 1 1 PRESHA,NA FARM PUD LAND USE SUMMARY 724197 Cwellinc Units Acres % cf FUD Open Space District 22.4 ..0c44Q Equestrain Center District 4 9.2 16% R20 - Single Family Residential District 20 12.2 21% R10 - Single Family Residential District 30 8.9 15% Rcad Richt-of-Way 5.2 9% TOTAL PUD 5,4 57.9 Cress Density of Tctal PUD 0.9 UNITS/ACRE 1.1 ACRES/UNIT Net Density cf Residential Districts 2.4 : UNITS/ACRE 100%