HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Staff ReportMemo
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Kit Lyon, Planning Department
CC: Ron Liston
Date: 03/15/00
Re: Preshana Farms PUD text amendment
Garfield County
Planning Department
Attached hereto please find a request from Aspen Equestrian Estates, LLC, to amend the text
of the Preshana Farms Planned Unit Development. Pursuant to section 10.04, the Board of
County Commissioners referred this application to the Planning Commission for review and
recommendation.
The Planning Commission concurs with the applicant's position that "the proposed prairie
style architectural theme is beneficial... through the promotion of lower profile structures..."
and does not foresee any negative impacts from approval of the request to allow roof eaves to
project thirty-six (36") inches into any required yard in the R/20 and R/10 zone districts.
On March 8, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application by the
Board of County Commissioners with the following condition:
1. That all representations made by the applicant in the application, and at the public
meeting before the Planning Commission , shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically
altered by the Board of County Commissioners.
• Page 1
• •
LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP
918 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-945-2246 / Fax 970-945-4066
January 26, 2000
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Dept.
108 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Preshana Farm PUD
Zone District Text Amendment
Dear Mark:
On behalf of Aspen Equestrian Estates LLC, I respectfully submit this letter requesting
a revision to the language of the Zone Text of the Preshana Farm Planned Unit
Development. Specifically, this request is to add the following language to the end of
Section D. R20/S.F.R., 6. Minimum Setbacks and Section E. R10/S.F.R., 6 Minimum
Setbacks of said Zone Text:
Provided, roof eaves may project thirty-six (36) inches into any
required yard.
This revision is proposed as a result of the adoption of an architectural theme for the
residences within the PUD and the development of specific designs for the initial model
homes. The preferred architectural theme is a "prairie style" that encourages a
predominance of single story structures with moderately shallow pitched rooflines and
wide eaves. The prairie style architecture is compatible with the broad open character
of the existing site and will minimize the visual impact of the residences as viewed from
Hwy 82. The encouragement of lower profile residences will enhance the visual
dominance of new landscape plantings on each lot and in adjacent open space areas.
The Garfield County Zone Regulations (Section 5.05.03, (6) Projections) provide for an
eighteen (18) inch eave projection into a required yard. The proposed thirty-six (36)
inch projection will not result in unusually close roof structures due to the larger than
normal side yard setbacks. Side yard setbacks are 20 feet in the R20/S.F.R. District
and 15 feet in the R10/S.F.R. District. The minimum side yard dimension between a
roof and the roof on an adjacent lot would be 24 feet. The proposed eave projections
1
• •
will have little if any perceptible impact on front or rear yards which have setbacks of 25
feet or greater.
The promotion of one story structures results in larger residential structure footprints
and reduces the flexibility for positioning the residence within the buildable area,
particularly if only one half of the eave is allowed beyond the setback line. In the case
of some of the smaller lots, the desired model home footprint (approximately 3,500
square feet) extends the full width of the buildable area (side yard to side yard). The
proposed revision is most critical in the R10/S.F.R. Zone District due to the smaller lot
sizes. The revision is proposed for the R20/S.F.R. District to allow greater flexibility in
locating the residence and to maintain uniformity in the application of the eave
projection criteria. The use of different eave projection criteria between the two
residential districts could cause confusion for designers as well as county building
officials.
We believe the proposed prairie style architectural theme is beneficial not only to the
development project but to the general public through the promotion of lower profile
structures that are more quickly integrated into the visual character of the site. The
proposed eave projection criteria is critical to the implementation of this theme and has
no negative implications for the visual quality or safety of the proposed construction.
We specifically request that the scope of review by the P & Z and the BOCC be limited
to the proposed text amendment. It is not our intention to create an opportunity for the
County to revisit other provisions of the PUD zoning. Please insure that the notice for
the public hearing indicate that this text amendment is the only matter being presented
for review.
On behalf of the Owner, I request that this application be processed as quickly as
Zone Text Amendment procedures and County schedules allow since the processing of
this request is a prerequisite to the completion of the initial model homes. Thank you
for your assistance. If you have any questions or desire any additional information
please call.
Sincerely,
Ronald B. Liston
2
Aspen Equestrian Estates LLC`'
Jay Weinberg, Manager
• •
Memo
ToGarfield County Board of County Commissioners
From: Kit Lyon, Planning Department
CC: Ron Liston
Date: 02/11/00
Re: Preshana Farrns PUD text amendment
Garfield County
Planning Department
150,6 020Tnfi
al
Honorable Board Members:
Attached hereto please find a request from Aspen Equestrian Estates, LLC, to amend the text
of the Preshana Farms Planned Unit Development. Pursuant to section 10.04, staff
recommends this item be referred to the Planning Commission for discussion and comment at
their next meeting on March 8, 2000.
• Page 1
• •
LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP
918 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-945-2246 / Fax 970-945-4066
January 26, 2000
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Dept.
108 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Preshana Farm PUD
Zone District Text Amendment
Dear Mark:
On behalf of Aspen Equestrian Estates LLC, I respectfully submit this letter requesting
a revision to the language of the Zone Text of the Preshana Farm Planned Unit
Development. Specifically, this request is to add the following language to the end of
Section D. R20/S. F. R., 6. Minimum Setbacks and Section E. R 10/S. F. R_, 6 Minimum
Setbacks of said Zone Text:
Provided, roof eaves may project thirty-six (36) inches into any
required yard.
This revision is proposed as a result of the adoption of an architectural theme for the
residences within the PUD and the development of specific designs for the initial model
homes. The preferred architectural theme is a "prairie style" that encourages a
predominance of single story structures with moderately shallow pitched rooflines and
wide eaves. The prairie style architecture is compatible with the broad open character
of the existing site and will minimize the visual impact of the residences as viewed from
Hwy 82. The encouragement of lower profile residences will enhance the visual
dominance of new landscape plantings on each lot and in adjacent open space areas.
The Garfield County Zone Regulations (Section 5.05.03, (6) Projections) provide for an
eighteen (18) inch eave projection into a required yard. The proposed thirty-six (36)
inch projection will not result in unusually close roof structures due to the larger than
normal side yard setbacks. Side yard setbacks are 20 feet in the R20/S.F.R. District
and 15 feet in the R10/S.F.R. District. The minimum side yard dimension between a
roof and the roof on an adjacent lot would be 24 feet. The proposed eave projections
1
_�.
• •
will have little if any perceptible impact on front or rear yards which have setbacks of 25
feet or greater.
The promotion of one story structures results in larger residential structure footprints
and reduces the flexibility for positioning the residence within the buildable area,
particularly if only one half of the eave is allowed beyond the setback line. In the case
of some of the smaller lots, the desired model home footprint (approximately 3,500
square feet) extends the full width of the buildable area (side yard to side yard). The
proposed revision is most critical in the R10/S.F.R. Zone District due to the smaller lot
sizes. The revision is proposed for the R20/S.F.R. District to allow greater flexibility in
locating the residence and to maintain uniformity in the application of the eave
projection criteria. The use of different eave projection criteria between the two
residential districts could cause confusion for designers as well as county building
officials.
We believe the proposed prairie style architectural theme is beneficial not only to the
development project but to the general public through the promotion of lower profile
structures that are more quickly integrated into the visual character of the site. The
proposed eave projection criteria is critical to the implementation of this theme and has
no negative implications for the visual quality or safety of the proposed construction.
We specifically request that the scope of review by the P & Z and the BOCC be limited
to the proposed text amendment. It is not our intention to create an opportunity for the
County to revisit other provisions of the PUD zoning. Please insure that the notice for
the public hearing indicate that this text amendment is the only matter being presented
for review.
On behalf of the Owner, I request that this application be processed as quickly as
Zone Text Amendment procedures and County schedules allow since the processing of
this request is a prerequisite to the completion of the initial model homes. Thank you
for your assistance. If you have any questions or desire any additional information
please call.
Sincerely,
Ronald B. Liston
2
ill G
Aspen Equestrian Estates LLC
Jay Weinberg, Manager
Memo
To: Garfield County Planning Commission
From: Kit Lyon, Planning Department
CC: Ron Liston
Date: 02/17/00
Re: Preshana Farms PUD text amendment
Garfield County
Planning Department
/u-/°'7\-0
Attached hereto please find a request from Aspen Equestrian Estates, LLC, to amend the text
of the Preshana Farms Planned Unit Development. Pursuant to section 10.04, the Board of
County Commissioners has referred this application to the Planning Commission for review
and recommendation.
Staff concurs with the applicant's position that "the proposed prairie style architectural theme
is beneficial ... through the promotion of lower profile structures... ". Staff does not foresee
any negative impacts from approval of the request to allow roof eaves to project thirty-six
(36") inches into any required yard in the R/20 and R/10 zone districts.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the application to
the Board of County Commissioners with the following condition:
1. That all representations made by the applicant in the application, and at the public
meeting before the Planning Commission , shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically
altered by the Board of County Commissioners.
• Page 1
•
LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP
918 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-945-2246 / Fax 970-945-4066
January 26, 2000
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Dept.
108 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Preshana Farm PUD
Zone District Text Amendment
Dear Mark:
On behalf of Aspen Equestrian Estates LLC, I respectfully submit this letter requesting
a revision to the language of the Zone Text of the Preshana Farm Planned Unit
Development. Specifically, this request is to add the following language to the end of
Section D. R20/S.F.R., 6. Minimum Setbacks and Section E. R10/S.F.R_, 6 Minimum
Setbacks of said Zone Text:
Provided, roof eaves may project thirty-six (36) inches into any
required yard.
This revision is proposed as a result of the adoption of an architectural theme for the
residences within the PUD and the development of specific designs for the initial model
homes. The preferred architectural theme is a "prairie style" that encourages a
predominance of single story structures with moderately shallow pitched rooflines and
wide eaves. The prairie style architecture is compatible with the broad open character
of the existing site and will minimize the visual impact of the residences as viewed from
Hwy 82. The encouragement of lower profile residences will enhance the visual
dominance of new landscape plantings on each lot and in adjacent open space areas.
The Garfield County Zone Regulations (Section 5.05.03, (6) Projections) provide for an
eighteen (18) inch eave projection into a required yard. The proposed thirty-six (36)
inch projection will not result in unusually close roof structures due to the larger than
normal side yard setbacks. Side yard setbacks are 20 feet in the R20/S.F.R. District
and 15 feet in the R10/S.F.R. District. The minimum side yard dimension between a
roof and the roof on an adjacent lot would be 24 feet. The proposed eave projections
1
• •
will have little if any perceptible impact on front or rear yards which have setbacks of 25
feet or greater.
The promotion of one story structures results in larger residential structure footprints
and reduces the flexibility for positioning the residence within the buildable area,
particularly if only one half of the eave is allowed beyond the setback line. In the case
of some of the smaller lots, the desired model home footprint (approximately 3,500
square feet) extends the full width of the buildable area (side yard to side yard). The
proposed revision is most critical in the R10/S.F.R. Zone District due to the smaller lot
sizes. The revision is proposed for the R20/S.F.R. District to allow greater flexibility in
locating the residence and to maintain uniformity in the application of the eave
projection criteria. The use of different eave projection criteria between the two
residential districts could cause confusion for designers as well as county building
officials.
We believe the proposed prairie style architectural theme is beneficial not only to the
development project but to the general public through the promotion of lower profile
structures that are more quickly integrated into the visual character of the site. The
proposed eave projection criteria is critical to the implementation of this theme and has
no negative implications for the visual quality or safety of the proposed construction.
We specifically request that the scope of review by the P & Z and the BOCC be limited
to the proposed text amendment. It is not our intention to create an opportunity for the
County to revisit other provisions of the PUD zoning. Please insure that the notice for
the public hearing indicate that this text amendment is the only matter being presented
for review.
On behalf of the Owner, I request that this application be processed as quickly as
Zone Text Amendment procedures and County schedules allow since the processing of
this request is a prerequisite to the completion of the initial model homes. Thank you
for your assistance. If you have any questions or desire any additional information
please call.
Sincerely,
Ronald B. Liston
- Aspen Equestrian Estates LLC
Jay Weinberg, Manager
2
I.
• (A±D{)
iA5P°"'
PRESHANA FARM PLANNED UNIT DEVEL PMENT
P. U. D. ZONE DISTRICT DESCRIPTIONS
and � v
VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
August 28 1997
REVISED PER RESOLUTION NO. 98-11, DATED March 2, 1998,
And
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-16, DATED FEBRUARY 22, 2000a - 4-/g- -t
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY,
COLORADO. �1I100 it
ZONE DISTRICTS
we/kg_
Lam' W (v) f
The provisions of these regulations shIjlprevail and govern the development of
Preshana Farm PUD provided; however, where the provisions of Preshana Farm
PUD Zone Regulations do not clearly address a specific subject, the ordinances,
resolutions or regulations of Garfield County shall prevail. Definitions established
herein shall take precedence over definitions established by the Zoning
Regulation of Garfield County, adopted January 2, 1979 and as amended,
wherever these regulations are applicable to Preshana Farm PUD.
A. ZONE DISTRICTS LISTED
To carry out the purposes and provision of the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution of 1978, Garfield County, Colorado, as amended, the Preshana Farm
Planned Unit Development Zone District is further divided into the following zone
district classifications:
- O.S.
- E.C.
- R20-S.F.R.
- R10-S.F.R
Open Space District
Equestrian Center District
R20 - Single Family Residential District
R10 - Single Family Residential District
B. O.S. OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
1.
Uses By Right:
a. Open Space and Greenbelt
b. Park
c. Water Storage Tank
d. Pasturing of livestock including structures providing shelter for
• •
livestock and livestock feed when the footprint of the structure is
600 square feet or Tess.
2. Uses, Conditional
NONE
3. Uses, Special
a. Golf Course
b. Golf Driving Range
4. Minimum Lot Area
43,560 Square Feet (1 acre)
5. Maximum Lot Coverage
a. Buildings: 5 per cent of net developable land
b. All impervious materials: 10 per cent of net developable land
c. And as further restricted by Supplemental Regulations.
6. Maximum Floor Area
NONE
7. Minimum Setbacks
a. Front Yard
b. Rear Yard
c. Side yard
8. Maximum Building Height
16 feet
50 feet
35 feet
35 feet
C. E.C. EQUESTRIAN CENTER DISTRICT
Uses By Right:
a. Riding Stable, Equestrian Arena and Tack Shop
b. Agricultural, including farm, ranch, garden, greenhouse, plant
nursery, orchard, and customary accessory uses including buildings
for the enclosure of animals or property employed in any of the
above uses and retail establishment for the sale of goods
processed from raw materials produced on the lot.
c. Employee Housing units either attached or detached.
d. Veterinary Clinic
e. Park and open Space
f. Public Equestrian Event attended by less than 300 people
2
• •
2. Uses, Conditional:
NONE
3. Uses, Special:
a. Home Occupation
t -attended by- nare_thaa_300 people/day
c. Miniature Golf
d. Indoor Commercial Recreation
4. Minimum Lot Area
43,560 Square Feet ( 1 acre )
5. Maximum Lot Coverage
30 percent
6. Minimum Setback
a. Front Yard
35 feet
b. Rear Yard
25 feet
c. Side Yard
25 feet
7. Maximum Building Height
25 feet, Except that a water storage tank or a structure enclosing
such tank may be 32 feet to the highest ridgeline of the structure.
D. R20/S.F.R. R20/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
1. Uses By Right:
a. Single family and customary accessory uses including building for
shelter or enclosure of animals or property accessory to use of the
lot for residential purposes and fences, hedges, gardens, walls and
similar landscape features.
b. Park and Open Space
Uses, Conditional
NONE
3. Uses, Special:
a. Day Nursery (maximum of 6 nonresident children)
3
• •
b. Home Occupation
4. Minimum Lot Area
20,000 square feet
5. Maximum Lot Coverage
40 percent
6. Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard: 25 feet
Rear Yard: 25 feet except as depicted on the final plat
(Note: Lots 11, 12 & 13 to have 60 foot rear yard setback)
Side Yard: 20 feet
7. Maximum Building Height
25 feet
8. Maximum Floor Area
0.40/1.0 and as further provided under Supplemental Regulations
9. Minimum Off -Street Parking
Parking Spaces 6
E. R10/S.F.R. R10/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
1. Uses By Right:
a. Single family and customary accessory uses including building for
shelter or enclosure of animals or property accessory to use of the
lot for residential purposes and fences, hedges, gardens, walls and
similar landscape features.
b. Park and Open Space
2. Uses, Conditional
NONE
3. Uses, Special:
a. Day Nursery (maximum of 4 nonresident children)
b. Home Occupation
4. Minimum Lot Area
10,000 square feet
5. Maximum Lot Coverage
40 percent
6. Minimum Setbacks
4
• •
Front Yard: 25 feet
Rear Yard: 25 feet except as shown on final plat
(Note: Lots 16 - 19 to have 50 foot rear yard setback)
Side Yard: 15 feet
7 Maximum Building Height
25 feet
8. Maximum Floor Area
0.40/1.0 and as further provided under Supplemental Regulations
9. Minimum Off -Street Parking
Parking Spaces 6
II. DESIGN STANDARDS
A. SIGNS
All signs shall be subject to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution as amended
except as listed below:
1. Open Space District
One subdivision identification sign not to exceed 100 square feet.
2. R10— Single Family Residential District
One subdivision identification sign not to exceed 50 square feet.
One real estate sign not to exceed 50 square feet
B. FENCES
All fences shall be subject to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution as
amended except as listed below:
5
• •
1. Fences within the Open Space District shall observe the following criteria
except for areas requiring protection from wildlife:
a) Maximum height:
Wire Fence or solid fence or wall - 44 inches
Rail Fence - 54 inches
b) Wire strand fences shall have a minimum of 12 inches between the
top two wire strands.
d) Fences higher than 54" designed to exclude deer and elk from
gardens, landscaped areas or storage areas shall meet the required
building setbacks of the district.
2. Fences within the Residential Districts shall not exceed 48" when located
within the Front Yard Setback.
C. LIGHTING
All site lighting shall be downward directed to avoid projection of the light beyond
the boundaries of the lot. The luminar light source shall be shielded to minimize
glare when observed from adjacent lots.
III. VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Except as defined below, all provisions of the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations shall be applicable to the Preshana Farm PUD.
A. STREET DESIGN STANDARDS
1. Design Standards: Standard street design shall be as identified in the attached
chart titled Preshana Farm - Road Design Standards.
2. Cul-de-sac Length: Cul-de-sacs in excess of 600 feet shall observe the
following design standards:
a. Minimum Right -of -Way Radius 75 feet
b. Minimum Driving Surface, Outside Radius 70 feet
6
PRESHANA FARM ZONE TEXT
• •
Subject: PRESHANA FARM ZONE TEXT
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:16:09 -0700
From: "Ronald Liston" <rblist@QuixNet.net>
To: "Kit Lyons" <garcopin@rof.net>
KIT:
Attached are two files.
1. Preshana Farm Zone Text (Microsoft Word)
2. Road Standards (part of Zone Text) (Microsoft Excel Spread Sheet)
I have checked this against the conditions of both of the referenced
resolutions. Please check it over for accuracy.
Have a Great Day!
Ron
Name: ZONE-TEXT.doc
ZONE-TEXT.doc Type: Winword File (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Name: 9708road.xls
09708road.xls Type: Microsoft Excel Worksheet (application/vnd.ms-excel)
Encoding: base64
I of I 03/30/2000 10:04 AM
BOCC 12/8/97
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 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/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.
.. 1
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 vision of locating more dense developments closer to
urban cores. See letter, pages (•
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 included inthe District, should assist in enhancing water
quality. See letter, pages n.11. .
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, re u sting tha
monitoring wells be utilized to gauge water quality. See letter, pages •
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
b
5 5. 45 .t
1,7
ir c mmendations concerning mitigation of impacts to wildlife. See letter, pages
4.17.
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 sew ge tre tment plant into the
Mid -Valley Metropolitan District. See letter, pages /yip .
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 •
H. Letter from Zancanella and Associates, dated November 19, 1997: Explain • fu he
detail the legal and physical water supply for the PUD. See letter, pages
I. Letter from Jerry and Vicki Garwood, dated November 21. 1997: States their
opposition to the PUD mo fications, due to environmental and infrastructural
concerns. See letter, page L .
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
approve for the Service Residential District. See land use breakdown maps and text,
pages 3 •3 . 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.
.3 -
OP
oeval
<9*
•
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
we: mager'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
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,
'of
simply because more land would be developed. This comparison can be made
graphically by viewing the maps on pages 3414 27
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 this stall'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.
3] 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.
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 units shall be
allocated in the following manner:
47 single family residential units (detached);
3 employee housing units.
5. That a fully -executed contract from the wastewater facility operator or provider, for
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.
8. 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.
Town of Carbondale
511 Colorado Avenue
Carbondale, CO 81623
September 29, 1997
Mr. Eric McCafferty
Garfield County Building & Planning
109 East 8th St.. Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Preshanna Farms PUD
(970) 963-2733
FAX (970j3 -':F
C+ 0. 1991;
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 25`h meeting and they unanimously directed me
to write the following letter. The primary issue is that the PUD 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 unit.
It is no secret that the property owners between the Ranch @ 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 significa_it
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 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 Town of Carbondale
have gotten together 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
Ob
zoning from the Ranch (u; 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
any of these larger issues.
S incerely,
:2'7)0,-kMichael Fiassig, Chairman
Carbondale Planning & Zoning Commission
(970) 945-1004
FAX (970) 945-5948
Sr'M
SCHMUESER
GORDON IlE.ER
ENGINEERS
SURVEYORS
118 West 6th, Suite 200
Glenw. 1 -.Sp+ gs,EO 81601
1.1
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:
c, k 01.1991 -1�
�:i
C •,F4Fie-LD ()QUIT)/
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.
- if -
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.
Gtouis Meyer, P.E.
LM:Ic/1501 C97
cc: Mid Valley Metropolitan District
Lee Leavenworth, Esq.
•
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC
Carbondale Sc Rural Fire Protection District
r- a owood Drive
;,i , •,, ::k ; onpd CO 81623
70) 963-2491
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:
SEP 19 1497 ) 963-0569
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 sprinldered. 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.
Sin :,.e1
4414/
Bill Gavette
Fire Marshal
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
D � 7 GSS
SEP 1997;
�:7t�i"R'ttLu':N i
y
Dear Sir,
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,
Scott1bodero, President
Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
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:
-•
i
1991
Ci RF=iiELD COUNTY
REFER TO
For Wildlife -
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, Member
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 McCAFFERTY, 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.
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 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, an 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.
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
December 1, 1997
LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP
918 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-945-2246 / Fax 970-945-4066
r,r-= c,,-, F
Eric McCafferty, Planner m I -,0 , .
Garfield County Planning Department • QEc 0 2 1997 "
109 Eight Street J;1i
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 04F CCL 4T'(
Fir
Re: Preshana Farm Planned Unit Development
Dear Eric:
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.
11 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 language for our
review.
2] 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.
2. 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 PUD 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 PUD) 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
P.O. Box 1908
1005 Cooper Ave.
Glenwood Springs,
CO 81602
fs<\
Z4NC4NELL4 4140 4S5OC14TE5, INC.
ENGjNEESING COMSULT414T5
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
proposed 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 to 54 single family residences and an
equestrian center. We have converted the future uses 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.U.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 (_, c+ti, e cam-
Thomas A. Zancanella, P.E.
President
cc: Ron Liston
L:\97420\Gar.ftr.wpd
a�f
APPLICATION FOR WATER ALLOTMENT CONTRACT
BASALT WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
1. Applicant's Name(s): Bruce Ross
Address: P.O. Box 935, Basalt, CO p1621
Telephone Number: (970) 927-0313
2. Type of land use (development) proposed for water allotment contract: (i.e. single
family home, subdivision, gravel pit, etc.)
PUD subdivision
3. Legal description of property on which District's water rights and/or Ruedi Reservoir
contract water shall bo used; Quarter Quarter, 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 diversion 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.
_Appaloosa Well. Arabian well, Pinl;o Well. See Attached
Exhibit A for legal descriptionsu
6. Has Applicant applied with the Water Court for water rights, change of water rights
and/or a water right plan for augmentation?es
Water Court Case No. y )CX no; If yes, what is the
7. Proposed waste water treatment system: (please chock)
X Tap to central waste water treatment facility
Septic tank/leachfield system
Evapotranspiration system
Other:
8. Proposed use of water: (please check)
X Domestic/Municipal (single family home(s),duplex(s),condominium(s),
mobile home(s), apartment, hotel). Please complete page two of this
X application.
Commercial (office, warehouse, restaurant, bar, retail). Please complete
page three of this application.
Industrial (gravel pit, manufacturing). Please cornplete 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 • -• this Appli . tion is made pursuant to the term and conditions thereof.
gnature
-Aso_
Basalt Water Conservancy District
Water Allotment Application
Page'Two
Please complete this page if you chocked 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 1-lome(s) Number of units:
Irrigation (lawns, parks, open space)
Total area to be irrigated 2500/unitsq. ft. or 3. 30 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:
Irrigatiort (lawns, parks, open space)
2500 ft2EQR
Total area to be irrigated sq. ft. or o.11 acres
Type of irrigation system: (please check)
X Sprinkler
• Flood (irrigation ditch)
Other Commercial Uses 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 agricultural use on Pago 1, No. 8.
Irrigation
AGRICULTURAL WATER USE
N/A
Typo of crop(s) (pasture, alfalfa, beans, etc.) and irrigation system:
Crop
Crop
Crop
Crop
Stock Watering (cattle, horses)
Number of animals:
Months of use:
Acres Sprinklor; _ Flood
Acres Sprinkler; Flood
Acres Sprinkler; Flood
Acres Sprinkler; _ Flood
Other agricultural uses not listed:
Preshana Farms P.U.D.
Estimated Water Requirements
Water Use Inputs
Jot#t 97420
(8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
Domestic Commercial Dom\Comm Open Space Live- Average
In-house In-house Irrigation Irrigation stock Total Flow
(ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (gpm)
0.090 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.14 1.0
0.081 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.12 1.0
0.090 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.14 1.0
0.087 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.04 0.33 2.5
0.090 0.00 1.22 0.00 0.04 1.35 9.9
0.087 0.00 1.53 0.00 0.04 1.67 12.6
0.090 0.00 1.45 0.00 0.04 1.59 11.6
0.090 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.04 1.08 7.9
0.087 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.04 0.93 7.0
0.090 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.04 0.39 2.9
0.087 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.13 1.0
0.090 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.14 1.0,
1.06 0.04 6.41 0.00 0.50 8.01 4.94
Diversion Requirements „
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Domestic Commercial Dom\Comm Open Space Live- Average
In-house In-house Irrigation Irrigation stock Total Flow
(ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (gpm)
01 m m r m 1r1 r 00 If/ CD 01 D1
r1 r1 r1 tD 6 O O r1 N 6 r7 r1
r r r r N 01 N N N r r r
O1 r a1 r1 CDD O CD N 001 N COD m
r r r N 01 Q 0) CO N N r r
CO 0) O M r r1 O r l9 O
V 01 Q V V Q V Q Q V V Q
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O
000000000000
O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O o Cr) Q Cr) c0 In Q N o o
0 0 o N n o r1 r r1 0 0
O O O O r N N r r 0 0 0
h (D Is CD n (D N N. CD h (D h
O O O O O o 0 0 O 0 0 O
0 O O O O o O 0 0 0 0 0
a0 Q a0 O c0 0 0 0 O 00 O N
01 N 01 Q 0) Q 01 01 Q 01 Q 01
N. CO n n n N h n 1. ti n e
,fAD
aj
..,
"
9-
r7
0
O
O
O
co
V'
of
0
h
O
co
ID
N
Month
I.- w
g co 2 a��� a ap 0 ti
w
a`I
Jot#t 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 6th P.M.
Appaloosa Well
1825 feet from the north line
2147 feet from the west line
Located at a point whence the Northwest corner of 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 of 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 of Section 31 bears North 37°28'30"
West for a distance of 2569.5 feet.
see file 96306/servarea2.dwg in the image files for details
lab
3
0
OP
••1
ti
NI I1l •
li
\ o I
29
n d
a
I 4
II
IIx 6285
1 —
— —+-- — 4-5.778r-
ArE
+6289
•
1 36
ST.FINNBAR FARM
1:
TO CARBONDALE '• .•
,34
kr Irk
77 , A7'
4
11
V;CiNII
SCALE .7
",6
November 21, 1997
Board of County Commissioners
109 8th Street
Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Re: Henry & Lana Trettin and Bruce Ross request for zoning change.
Hearing: 2:00 p.m. on December 8, 1997
Dear Commissioners:
15413171 t
NOV 25 '1997
WELD camas
As I am unable to attend the hearing scheduled, I would like to voice my opposition to the
proposed PUD 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 environment 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 directly adjacent to this proposed site. Is the
state going to allow these developments to build their own sewer 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 and won't be able to in the foreseeable
future. Besides the issue of congestion, there is the issue of air pollution.
There are many other questions that need to be studied before we allow this growth to continue.
Are we going to allow an investor's greed, to destroy why we have chosen to live in this valley. The
beauty of open space and a clean environment need to be protected or else we are going to turn this valley
into another Southern California.
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 go on unchecked as to what our
infrastructure can handle.
Sincerely,
Jerry and Vicki Garwood
/
/ 1 11
/ 1 1
CO. ROAD 100
r
/1 1
I
r •,
/
/
/ /
"1/ -, 1 /.
!/, or"...
•
11 r r ../ / '-4 �(
-- i'
/
I 1 I / / ��
1 . •
1 !1 / Z ,' 1 1
11° /
, 1 8 /. I I i
1,,' / KI
/
rl
1 / / / /1' •F-1 , 1 i
l! / , / 1
1 I / /•
rr / II 11
/r /, W I 1 cf
1
/ •'
1, 1 IIS %
/I r' / / - /' III.
! ! /� - '< 1'1
j J o
...
/� .,F`L �� rllr kv
01 0, 0
1
if , / Cn r r,, 8 \\ az
e.
Z
! I 1 V r p C m Z c4S vs
1 ! / —1-- i /
f 1 ` II zz `,,, C nuc cam' 3 rn
�—
;1
/
/
W /
•
1
I
PRESHANA FARM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
LAND USE SUMMARY Revised 8-02-89
DWELLING ACRES % OF
UNITS PUD
Open Space District 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
I SERVTCE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
1 DWI -TING UNITS 2 2.6 4.49
LODGING UNITS 10
(by Special Use Review)
TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 38 57.9
TOTAL LODGING UNITS . 10 100.00
GROSS DENSITY(Dwelling Units) .66 Units/Acre
CO. ROAD 100
3e‘.
CO. ROAD too
-37-
PRESHANA FARM PUD
LAND USE SUMMARY
7/24/97
Dwelling Units
Open Space District
Equestrain Center District
R20 - Single Farnily Residential District
R10 - Single Farnily Residential District
Road Right -of -Way
4
20
30
Acres % of PUD
22.4 39%
9.2 16%
12.2 21%
8.9 15%
5.2 9%
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
xi
100%
�. �.
A _, ,
1'A �
• •
Exhibits Explanation
A. Proof of publication
B. Certified mailing receipts
C. Application with all attachments
D. Project information and staff comments, with all attachments
E. Letter from William Gilligan, dated November 26, 1997
F. Copy of the Garfield County zoning resolution of 1978, as amended
G. Copy of the Garfield county comprehensive plan for study area I
• •
Preshana Report PC 10/8/97
The subject tract is approx. 58 acres in size, and located west of County Road 100, three miles east
of Carbondale. State Highway 82 forms a significant portion of the northerly border, with ranch at
roaring fork located to the west. The property slopes toward the Roaring fork river and a portion
of the floodplain associated with blue creek is located in the southeastern corner of the tract. There
are a number of existing structures on the property including a primary dwelling, housing for
employees and assorted equestrian facilities.
Adjacent land uses include commercial, residential, agricultural and recreational.
This proposal is for a modification to the approved, Planned Unit Development, which allowed a mix
of single family dwelling units, employee housing, and a bed and breakfast. The proposed
modifications include a mix of single family residential and employee housing units.
To date, the Planning Department has received the following comments:
1 ] The Planning Commission for the town of Carbondale has responded, noting that the proposal
is not consistent with the land use densities contained in the comprehensive plan and the
philosophy of focusing development closer to urban centers;
2] Mid -Valley metropolitan district has commented, noting that negotiations are proceeding to
incorporate the subject tract, as well as additional lands, into its service district;
3] Carbondale rural fire protection district has commented stating the proposed infrastructure
should be adequate; that fire hydrants meet the uniform fire code and requests appropriate
impact fees be paid at time of final plat;
4] Mount Sopris soil conservation district comments with concerns for erosion, revegetation
using weed -free seeds, animal control, irrigation ditches, water quality and other concerns;
5] Division of wildlife who notes that a variety of mammals and birds utilize the site and stresses
that wildlife movement should not be hindered by development;
6] Don has noted concern for the wastewater treatment plant, emergency access to the PUD,
conformity with the comprehensive plan, and issues related to open space.
7] We have received a response to Don's letter from Ron Liston, which explains the points
contained in Don's letter;
8] We have received a letter from Zancanella and associates which provides additional detail
concerning the legal and physical water supply for the development;
9] Jerry and Vicki Garwood have provided a letter, stating their opposition due to environmental
concerns;
10] Finally, William Gilligan has responded, and as owner of the Blue Creek Ranch he states his
opposition to the PUD modifications due to the high density and its detrimental effect to the
rural character of the area.
Turning back to the existing PUD, the subject tract received PUD approval in 1989, which included
38 single family homes, 15 of which were included in a single family district, 11 patio homes within
a cluster district and 10 employee units. There was also a bed and breakfast for up to 10 guests and
2 other dwelling units for the owner or the manager of the development. Central to this development
• •
would have been the equestrian facilities and the open space would also have created a buffer from
highway 82.
This original approval was based on proposed wastewater service from ranch at roaring fork, which
apparently would have required expansion of the existing facilities. To date, no service agreement
has ever been reached.
The PUD modifications propose a total of 54 dwelling units, 20 of which would be placed in a zone
district with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and 30 units within a zone district which
proposes minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet. The additional residential units would include 3
employee units and an owner's or manager's residence.
The modifications propose that the owner would initially retain the equestrian facilities, with an
option to sell the equestrian facilities at a later date. There is also an option that if the equestrian
portion of the PUD is unprofitable then, upon agreement with the homeowners association, this land
could be combined with the open space for the creation of a par -3 golf course.
The modified PUD also envisions developing an on-site water supply, from the alluvium of the
roaring fork river valley, and a legal supply backed by Basalt water conservancy contracts.
Wastewater would be treated by a new treatment plant, also contemplated to serve additional
development. This plant has received site application approval by the county commissioners;
however, at this time, there does not appear to be a firm mechanism to ensure its completion. This
facility is being proposed as a component of the development of the St. Finnbar site, which is located
south of the Preshana site and as staff sees it, this arrangement would seem to confer a prior
development approval of the St. Finnbar site.
In an effort to analyze the approved PUD plan and the proposed plan, I have provided a comparison
of the major components of each, which is demonstrated in the chart on page 4 of the report.
To summarize this comparison, single family units would increase by 34%, employee housing would
decrease by 70%, lodging units would decrease by 100%, open space would decrease by 22% and
gross density would increase by 41%.
The application contains a quote that Preshana Farms is "one of the premiere equestrian facilities in
Colorado." It seems be me, based on the comparison I have made, the equestrian values that are so
highly regarded would be destroyed if the modifications are allowed, as proposed.
In terms of regulations, this modification is being reviewed consistent with Section 4.12.03(2) of the
zoning resolution, which states, in part, that modifications to the existing plan may be made so long
as they ensure the efficient development and preservation of the entire PUD. In my opinion, there
would be no preservation of the equestrian values so highly regarded, there would be no public
benefit from the modifications and the approval of the modifications would confer a special benefit
on the developer for the sole fact that the County would be in the position of subsidizing the
equestrian facility with the increased density, with no guarantee the equestrian facility would remain
in existence. Additionally, the golf course provision within the modifications is incompatible with the
• 1
future of the equestrian facilities. I offer further that it is staff's opinion that the modifications are
contrary to the following goals contained within the Comprehensive Plan. Those are the housing,
transportation, commercial, recreation and open space, agriculture, water and sewer services, natural
resource extraction, and urban area of influence.
Based on many of these reasons, I recommended the Planning Commission deny the application,
contrary to this recommendation, the Commission voted to approve the application with the 3 listed
conditions attached.
The Board's decision in this matter must be supported by specific findings and if you accept the
Planning Commission's recommendation, I suggest the noted findings and additional approval
conditions would be appropriate. Likewise, if you vote to deny specific findings must be made.