Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 10.08.1997• • PC 10/8/97 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REOUEST: 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 6th 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/RLRD 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. II. 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. 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). IlI 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 visionpf ating more dense developments closer to urban cores. See letter, pages �1 B. 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 inc u d in the District, should assist in enhancing water quality. See letter, pages _. 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, requesting that monitoring wells be utilized to gauge water quality. See letter, pages a42 . 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 recommend tions concerning mitigation of impacts to wildlife. See letter, pages F. Garfield County Attorney's Office: Identifies concern for the proposed centralized sewage disposal 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 treatment plant into the Mid -Valley Metropolitan District. See letter, pages /5f /`. 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 j ? - j 9 . 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 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 -3 so • • 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. 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 0 34% increase 70% decrease 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 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 24-67-104, 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. It is 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 therefore recommends, for the reasons contained herein, denial of the proposed modifications. • Town of Carbondale. 511 Colorado Avenue Carbondale, CO 81623 September 29, 1997 M.r. Eric:. t'vlcC'aflerty Garfield County Building & Planning 109 Fast gib St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 8I 601 RE: Preshanna Farms PUD Dear Eric: (970) 963-2733 FAX (9709 3-§8-1 �`— }.....r'. Vit, '09.7 "Thank you for giving the •Town of Carbondale the opportunity to respond to the PUD Zoning Amendment for Preshanna Farris. The Carbondale Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at their September 25`x' meeting and they unanimously directed me to write the following letter. Fhe primary issue is that the ['LID Zoning for Preshanna as 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 emit. 11 is no secret that the property owners between the Ranch rci), 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 strongly 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 signifienat change thr 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 Comprehensive 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 "Down of ('aibondakc have gotten together a few tunes 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 heyonc1 which development would he rural in nature. Installation of urban services and a significant up G- zoning from the Ranch (ii) 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 01 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 KID does not put any restriction on the number of single Ianlily dwellings or the number of multi --fancily dwellings in the Equestrian District. This would result in a conflict with the hind use summary chart as provided in the application. Once again, thank you for letting Carbondale comment 00 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 any of. these larger issues. Sincerely. 1 c Michael 1Das.sitt. Chairman Carbondale Planning & %.ening Commission • (970) 945-1004 FAX (970) 945-5948 September 30, 1 997 ENGINEERS SURVEYORS SGM SCH MUESER GORDON MEYE,R 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 61h, 'Suite 200 Glenw,.. •rgs; E0 81601 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 for 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:Ic/1 501 C97 cc: Mid Valley Metropolitan District Lee Leavenworth, Esq. Or SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC • September 16, 1997 • h :. pre Protection District Eric McCafferty Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 cz E1 9 1997 F a iwood Drive 1 ,`CO 81623 9 ) 963-2491 9 Q) 963- ---.rJv� RE: Preshana Farms PUD Rezoning & Sketch Plan Eric: 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 sprinklered. 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. Impact Fees 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. Sial = b///,1 Bill Gavette Fire Marshal 110 MOUNT SOPRIS SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT P.O. BOX 1302 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 September 15, 1997 Eric McCafferty Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Sir, inm 3EP t -.7 1997; r •ii I 0.44='* LD LINTY At the regular monthly meeting of the Mount Sopris 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 or construction should be revegetated to prevent erosion. Weed free seed and mulch should be used for any reseeding of 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 mitigate 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, Scott4Jodero, President Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES • DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN r-OUAI. orF'onruNITy EMF'Lovrrl John Mumma, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 9-14-97 Garfield County Planning 109 8th St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Eric: T.,, .4"rlf1 r, --t, . L a.....:'.t......k. ..l_r__(.. ' , :.4t7 ,.1.8 1947 1 ji- ( J:*:f-i_D(X)UNIY nrrFn l() rJ vN OF For Wildli/e For People I have reviewed the Preshana Farm PUL.) rezoning and sketch plan. Preshana's main value to wi._l.d:l_ife 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 Dlue 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 proposalstated 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 Or NA mina. RrSO1JRCEs, ,lames S. Lnchlrr'nrl, 1.xr'rulivo 1lirerinr WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Arnold Snla7ar, Chairman • Rehecr.n 1... Finnic, Vire f:Irai man • Maik I.eVallny, Sect platy Josso Langston (lnyrl, ,Ir., Member • Chuck Lewis, Merrrhor • .lames I nntl, Me,mbnr I_rnris r. swirl Monrbcr • John Stull), Mernlre.r „ /3, The following recommendations will help to minimize impacts to wildlife: 1. Maintain homes:i.te 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 bark Jot line. There should be no home or deck overhang to riparian/wetland area. 2. Maintain cottonwodds 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 hefore 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 Manch at Roaring Fork and Preshana. A.11 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 hojneowners should be made aware that deer and perhaps an occassional elk may cause damage to their ornamental and landscaping plants. The bow 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 midlife Manager Carbondale • • CAR Mfit1,J) COUNTY C()LJ TY ATTORNEY'S OFFJ.Ct, 109 81h Sheet, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81001-3303 'relcphono (970) 945-9150 Fax No. (970) 945-778.5 NI le, Ri O TO: ERIC McCAFFER'l'Y, P1 ANNJ R FROM: DON K. DEFORD RE: I'RESHANA 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 Lhe St. Finnbar. Development Plan, as well as stat:e and local approval for the SL. Finnbar 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 submittalof 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 Lo 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 develo ers should identify the manner in which the equestrian center, any ' apparent commercialuse, 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. • • Memo to Eric McCa t%n ty, 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 Lo 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:vim 6.. /if gip `\J • I , ,i C '� / ./ / 1 C I7 \ ► / / •j I I , ' \ \ 1 / / 1 l / / . . I / l 1'{) , I I I i) I I / / / �I1 C-1 `I / / , 1 L.1 / \ / J. / )'"): r, Ir'1 /_,; / \,1E-, I k. /D 1 I , 1 �/) C./) 11 111 ( h1 / , ,-, , -+ 1-] 1+= 111 I II ( 3 1 1 I. I 1 I r r/ / C:,142/) -_ .�� 1 11 I /I ''(1- t.) 1 1 \1 1 1"1 5. k / 001 (IVO11 Y1:) i • / / / /' 11 / /i I y 1 1, , 11 ,/ /1' / ▪ •// / ▪ '/ —V / I, / I/ It __— 1 . —.__ . . 1__. / Il 1 / Ir / I / •/ / 1 / 1 ' 1 / / r / 1 .1, • 1, I • 1. I / 11 . 1 / )Jr i r;) sf � J I I1.., ;1, 1 0171 (IVI)1I 1):) a • I • • PRESHANA FARM PLANNED UNIT DWETOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY Revised 0-02-89 DWELLTNIG ACRES % OF UNITS PUD Open Space DisLricL 30.6 52.85 EQUESTRIAN CENTER DiST.(Employee Housing) 10 10.2 17.62 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT 15 10.9 18.83 CLUSTER HOUSING DISTRICT 11 3.6 6.22 SERVICE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT [WELLING UNITS 2 2.6 4.49 LODGING UNITS 10 (by Snecial Use Review) TOTAL DWELLING UNITS TOTAL LODGING UNITS GROSS DENSTTY(DwelIinq UniLs) .66 Unit-.s/Acre 30 57.9 11) 100.00 z trj u • (%( • u 77, R - : .— \ 1 ' 'i'1,-1'.,,,,,,;.. 's^ \ 66-1 ((Voll (.1 4- 070 f -w. ,t • '1) :Z. I 3 0 0 • • 0 ( I j I ) I '1 '.tt! (1) ttt1 "-;.1 (1) 1 TU t.tt, 411ttt4,-. 4? "i41 ^L. CH (IVO/1 0 0 r k. t.. s., f PRESHANA FARM PUD LAND USE SUMMARY 7/2'1/97 • • Dwellin• Units Acres % of PUD Open Space District 22.4 39% 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% Road Right -of -Way 5.2 9% TOTAL PUD 54 57.9 100% Gross Density of Total PUD 0.9 UNITS/ACRE 1.1 ACRES/UNIT Net Density of Residential Districts 2.4 UNITS/ACRE