Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Staff Report 04.12.20061 Exhibits for PC on April 12, 2006 Exhibit Letter (A to Z) B C D E F G H I Exhibit Mail Receipts uti Proof of Publication 1' Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended Application Staff Memorandum Letter from the Division of Water Resources dated 02/22/06 Memo from the County Road and Bridge Department dated 02/28/06 K L N 0 Letter from Resource Engineering dated 3/02/06 Memo from the County Vegetation Manager dated 03/01/06 Letter from Zancanella & Associates dated 3/20/06 Email from CDPHE dated 02/13/06 Letter from Eagle County Community Development Department dated 02/28/06 Letter from the Carbondale Rural & Fire Protection District dated 02/24/06 P Letter from Paul Andersen dated 11/14/05 Q R Email from Dave Michaelson dated 3/08/06 Email from CDOT dated 3/28/06 S Letter from the Division of Water Resources dated 3/24/06 T Letter from the Town of Carbondale dated 4/6/06 NEW EXHIBITS U V W X Y Z AA BB CC DD Letter from Russ & Karen Kraft received 4/10/06 Letter from Adam Sahnow received 4/11/06 Email from Glen Veretto dated 4/06/06 Letter from Antony & Amiee Cullick received 4/10/06 Letter from James Harris received 4/10/06 Letter from Eric Rewinkel received 4/10/06 Resolution No. 6, Series 2006 of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Carbondale opposing the JAm�e/n/dment o t je Preshana/Farm PUD q ii L, —9- e,,t,,-; ) ty /- pL4-.4,0 .,-,,,,N Vie----) 2_,-,2i) ID' ,{7 • • PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST DATE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE LOCATION SITE ZONING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PC 04/12/06 FJ 1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment (PH) 2) Preshana Farms Planned Unit Development Amendment (PM) 3) Sketch Plan (PM) April 12, 2006 Aspen Equestrian Estates, LLC (Jay Weinberg) Land Design Partnership, Ron Liston County Road 100 ("Catherine Store Road") 15.2 acres Planned Unit Development ("Open Space / Equestrian Center") Study Area I (Designation: Subdivision / Residential) Currently Approved Preshana Farms PUD Site Plan • I. PROJECT SUMMARY The Applicant proposes three land use actions to the Planning Commission in order to redevelop the equestrian portion of Preshana Farms PUD so that it includes a neighborhood commercial village and residential uses. The Applicant propose to serve the uses with water from either a new central system or connecting to the existing AAE / BC system, and sewer service will be provided by the Ranch at the Roaring Fork's central system. In order to accomplish this land use change, the Applicant requests approvals from the Planning Commission' for the following: A. Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Districts map for Study Area I for 3.31 acres of the 15.2 -acre property within the Preshana Farms PUD from "Subdivision" / "Residential" to "General Commercial" B. Amend the zoning designation of the subject 15.2 -acre lot in the Preshana Farms PUD from Open Space and Equestrian Center to the following zone districts: ➢ Open Space District (5.23 acres) ➢ R-10 Single -Family Residential District (1.2 acres) ➢ Utility District (1 acre) ➢ Residential Equestrian District; and (5.17 acres) ➢ Neighborhood Commercial Village District (3.31 acres) C. Additionally, the Applicant is proposing a Sketch Plan that effectively illustrates the 15.2 - acre property is subdivided into 12 lots more specifically comprised of five commercial lots ranging from 22,600 to 35,309 sq. ft. in a neighborhood commercial village; one open space lot; one residential / equestrian lot; one utility district lot; and four single-family residential lots in a development project to include three phases. The maps below illustrate the existing conditions of the property (on the left) and the proposed sketch plan in the panel to the right. 40 • In effect, the Applicant proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan to a land use designation that supports their rezone proposal to convert a large portion of the existing horse paddocks and stables to five commercial lots providing a total of 20,000 sq. ft. commercial space in the "Commercial Neighborhood Village" District which would include the following uses: ➢ Proposed Uses -by -Right o Personal Service Establishments including bank (with or without drive up facility), barber and beauty shop, copy and reproduction shop, secretarial and business services, travel agency, real estate sales office, mailbox services and shipping supplies and services, electronics repair, message therapy, tanning and manicure shop, tailor shop, shoe repair, indoor entertainment, consignment shop, dry cleaning serving individuals only, and insurance agency; o Fitness gym with exercise equipment and rooms for exercise classes, dance studio; o Small animal veterinary clinic with in-patient holding facilities contained entirely indoors with facilities for odor and sound control; o Delicatessen, cafe, juice bar, coffee shop, restaurant with or without alcoholic beverage service provided that no such individual business shall exceed 4,000 sq. ft. of gross internal floor area, Outdoor food and beverage service facilities with a seating capacity greater than 36 seats shall be allowed only on the easterly one-half of the district, drive- thru food or beverage service facilities are prohibited; o Retail sales of clothes and footwear, gifts, crafts and art products, curios, book and magazine, antiques, photographic supplies, flowers and live plants, tack and equestrian supplies, pets and pet supplies, ranch supplies and pre-packaged livestock feeds, fishing tackle and sports equipment, supplies and accessories provided that no such individual business shall exceed 4,000 sq. ft. of gross internal floor area, provided that retail sales display area shall not exceed 1,400 sq. ft. of sq. ft. in any one business; o Business, Professional, and medical offices; and o Parks and open Space II. PROCESS The Applicant is requesting several land use approvals to be processed concurrently as part of the project. Most notably, the Applicant requests approval to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan of 2000. The zoning regulations state any application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment must be approved by the Planning Commission (Commission), prior to the Commission's recommendation on the PUD / sketch plan portion of the development proposal. The Commission may consider the remainder of the application following a positive decision of the proposed amendment. In the event the Planning Commission denies an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan amendment, the remainder of the Applicant's requests becomes quite problematic. III. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject site is located in Study Area I of the Comprehensive Plan of 2000 (the Plan). The Garfield County Zoning Regulations require Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) to be in general conformity with the Plan. Note, applications for a Plan amendment shall include justification for the amendment based on the criteria for establishing land use designations contained in the Plan. A more detailed analysis of the proposal's relationship to the Plan is provided in Section V. (A) of this 3 memorandum. IV. REFERRAL AGENCIES The application was sent to the following County Departments and other agencies. Comments received are briefly provided here but are more substantively incorporated where appropriate throughout the memorandum as well as attached as Exhibits. A. Town of Carbondale: When the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan was developed, the citizens of Carbondale and Town Staff were involved with the process. We appreciate the opportunity to express our support for the land use policies already set forth in the adopted community plans and recommend that the land use at this location not be altered in any way that 1) is inconsistent with the designated uses and 2) will require a change to the adopted plans to allow a piecemeal change in a use without broader consideration of the entire area. (Exhibit T) B. Eagle County Planning Department: Placed review emphasis on potential traffic impacts and the type and amount of commercial development that is appropriate in that location. (Exhibit N) C. Carbondale Fire District: Proposed access appears to be adequate for emergency apparatus; either of the two proposed water supplies would be adequate; fire hydrant spacing is acceptable; and the proposed commercial (and residential) lots are subject to fire impact fees payable to the district at Final Plat. (Exhibit 0) D. RE -1 School District: No comments received E. Colorado Department of Transportation: The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) reviewed the traffic analysis agreed that the development will not increase traffic at the SH82 intersection by 20 percent therefore no access permit would be required for SH 82 and CR 100. CDOT also commented on the site plan that showed a realignment SH 82 Frontage road to align with development access point on CR 100. They agreed conceptually with the concept; however, an access permit would be required. It was not clear to CDOT if they actually had the right-of-way. Finally, CDOT commented that they did not see any information of queue lengths (backage from signal). There might be some concern with vehicles blocking the Catherine Store driveway. CDOT suggests that this development provide an easement for Catherine Store to use their access (backage road). Catherine Store access will become an issue in the future when traffic volumes increase on CR 100. Staff agrees with CDOT' s concern of long traffic queue lengths attempting to turn right into the commercial village which may back up and impact Catherine Store or even queue lengths attempting to turn off of SH82 onto CR 100. (Exhibit R) - F. Colorado Div. of Wildlife: No comments received G. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: Indicated if a new water system is proposed, the Applicant shall be required to obtain approval from CDPHE. (Exhibit M) 4 • • H. Colorado Division of Water Resources: It appears the proposed new system is physically adequate; however, material injury will occur to decreed water rights unless the Applicant obtains and maintains valid well permits. Lastly, DWR is unable to comment on a proposed connection to the existing AAE / BC system. (Exhibits H and S) Garfield County Road & Bridge Department: Regarding the Sketch Plan, the excel / decel lane should be extended past the intersection of Equestrian Way and CR 100. After this lane is paved, a 2 -inch asphalt overlay should be placed on the entire section of CR 100 from Highway 82 to the bridge on the Roaring Fork River. All entrances to CR 100 will have an access permit issued by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department in place. If access permits have not been issued then applications for access permits should be submitted to Garfield County Road & Bridge Department. A stop sign will be placed at all entrances to CR 100. The signs and installation shall be as required in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). If the County does not own a 30 -foot ROW from the center line of CR 100 the entire length of the property then a 30 -foot easement shall be deeded to Garfield County. All fences and structures encumbering this ROW shall be removed back to the new ROW at the sub -dividers expense prior to final approval by the BOCC. (Exhibit I) J. Garfield County Vegetation Management: Regarding noxious weeds, the Applicant needs to provide a noxious weed inventory, map, and weed management plan. There are infestations of the county listed noxious weed, plumeless thistle, in the area designated as "Open Space District". The weed management needs to contain a commitment to timely treatment of County listed noxious weeds. The Applicant needs to assign responsibility for future weed management in common elements. Staff suggests that the Applicant address weed management in the covenants for the Association and for individual lot owners. Regarding revegetation, the Applicant has not provided a revegetation plan that includes a plant materials list for review. Please quantify the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. This information will help determine the amount of security that will held for revegetation. Staff recommends a revegetation security once this information is provided. Regarding soil management, it is requested that the Applicant provide a Soil Management Plan that includes 1) Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil, 2) a timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles, and 3) a plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more. Lastly, please provide a mosquito management plan for the proposed pond. (Exhibit K) K. Resource Engineering: Regarding water service, both systems are feasible. The DWR issued a confusing letter of potential "Material Injury" on the basis that there is no guarantee that the State will issue well permits. The project is in the BWCD Area A and the state has never denied a well permit application submitted pursuant to an Area A water contract. It is our understanding that the BWCD and the Applicant are seeking clarification from the DWR on their review letter. The Applicant should resolve this issue prior to the Preliminary Plan Submittal. 5 • • Wastewater is proposed to be collected and treated at the Ranch at Roaring Fork central wastewater treatment facility. A "can and will serve" letter from the Ranch at Roaring Fork is included in the submittal. The proposed pond provides water quality treatment for runoff from the proposed commercial village area. The drainage analysis indicates compliance with GARCO criteria and regulations. The project site is subject to the potential for development of sinkholes and poor surface soil conditions. As recommended in the HP Geotech report dated November 30, 2004, all building shall require site specific geotechnical analysis and foundation design. The traffic study prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. indicates that no improvements are required to County Road 100 or the existing and proposed intersections. However, it appears that the report proposes that County Road 100 would have a southbound acceleration lane for right turns out of the commercial village, a short deceleration lane for right turns into the commercial village, and two northbound lanes in the commercial village area to minimize stacking behind left turns into the village area. We believe these improvements should be incorporated into any approval and the design of the project for the preliminary plan submittal. (Exhibit J) V. STAFF COMMENTS The following section provides analysis of the three actions requested in the following order: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Amendment to the PUD, and the Sketch Plan. Again, the Planning Commission is required to review the proposed amendment to the Plan prior to the rezone request for Preshana Farms PUD and associated Sketch Plan. A. Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan of 2000 As mentioned above, the Applicant proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Districts Map for Study Area I for 3.31 acres of the 15.2 -acre property within the Preshana Farms PUD from "Subdivision" / "Residential" to "General Commercial." They are requesting to amend the Plan to General Commercial so that it supports their plan to amend the PUD to include a neighborhood commercial zone district. As it stands presently, commercial development would not be possible because 1) the original underlying zoning of ARRD does not include any commercial uses and 2) the current Plan designation of Residential Subdivision also excludes commercial uses. As a result, the only legitimate way to rezone the property to include commercial uses is to have the support of the Plan. The County' s Zoning Resolution provides that applications for a Plan amendment shall include justification for the amendment based on the criteria for establishing land use designations contained in the Plan. To this end, Staff has consistently reviewed any proposed change 1) against the goals, policies and objectives listed in Section III of the Plan as well as 2) against the methodology matrix in Section IV of the Plan which was used to originally designate land uses in Study Area I. In the following section, Staff has evaluated the proposal with respect to the most germane provisions of the Plan in order to determine if the proposal is in general conformity with the Plan. These provisions specifically include transportation objections & policies; commercial use goals, 6 • • objectives, and policies; areas of urban influence; housing; and the methodology for determining future land uses. 3.0 Transportation Objectives 3.3 Proposed developments will be evaluated in terms of the ability of County roads to adequately handle the traffic generated by the proposal. 3.4 Proposed developments will include street designs that will reduce adverse impacts on adjacent land uses, respect natural topography and minimize driving hazards. 3.6 Proposed commercial and industrial development will direct traffic to roadways capable of handling projected traffic. Transportation Policies 3.3 The project review process will include a preliminary assessment of the projected traffic impact associated with all commercial projects. 3.6 Development proposals will be required to mitigate traffic impacts on County roads proportional to the development's contribution to those impacts. Mitigation may include, but not be limited to the following: A. Physical roadway improvements; B. Intersection improvements; C. Transit amenities; D. Signage requirements; E. Alternative traffic flow designs; F. Funding mechanism to implement necessary mitigation. 3.7 County road extensions will be evaluated based on the following criteria: A. Existing land uses adjacent to the project; B. Future land uses based on the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Regulations; C. The potential traffic to be handled by the proposed extension. 3.8 Staff review of proposed commercial and industrial development will include a determination of the potential impacts of the project on the local transportation system. Specific issues to be addressed include the following: A. Traffic generated based on Institute of Traffic Engineering (ITE) rates; B. Existing traffic counts on adjacent roadways; C. The appropriateness of proposed access points; D. The compatibility with existing and future traffic on the affected roadways. Staff Response Traffic generated from this property with the proposed uses will directly affect existing traffic volumes and turning patterns on County Road 100 (CR 100) as well as impact the nearby intersection of State Highway 82. The application contained a traffic study prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates (KHA) which ultimately stated that the proposed project can be accommodated by the existing street network without any improvements at key intersections. Likewise, this project adds less than 20% of traffic on the south leg of CR 100 as it connects to the SH82 intersection. The 7 • • KHA study uses "specialty retail center" and "shopping center" as representative land uses (814 and 820) in the [Ib Manual to be the closest to the proposed uses in the project. However, the PUD proposal also includes business, professional, and medical offices in its uses -by -right which appear to be excluded from the traffic land use calculations which can be referenced or classified as "medical -dental office building" (720). As a result, based on the proposed uses in the PUD, Staff finds the traffic analysis does not adequately characterize all of the proposed uses and their associated traffic generation. The KHA analysis recommends two improvements based on their study. 1) At the proposed access street intersection along CR 100, stop signs are recommended for installation on the minor approach, and 2) all on-site and off-site signing and striping improvements should be incorporated into the Civil Drawings, and conform to Garfield County standards and guidelines, as well as the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2003 (MUTCD). CDOT reviewed the traffic analysis agreed that the development will not increase traffic at the SH82 intersection by 20 percent therefore no access permit would be required for SH 82 and CR 100. CDOT also commented on the site plan that showed a realignment SH 82 Frontage road to align with development access point on CR 100. They agreed conceptually with the concept; however, an access permit would be required. It was not clear to CDOT if they actually had the right-of-way. Finally, CDOT commented that they did not see any information of queue lengths (backage from signal). There might be some concern with vehicles blocking the Catherine Store driveway. CDOT suggests that this development provide an easement for Catherine Store to use their access (backage road). Catherine Store access will become an issue in the future when traffic volumes increase on CR 100. Staff agrees with CDOT' s concern of long traffic queue lengths attempting to turn right into the commercial village which may back up and impact Catherine Store or even queue lengths attempting to turn off of SH82 onto CR 100. These turning movements are shown in the graphic to the right. The Applicant proposes to mitigate traffic impacts by improving CR 100 by adding a southbound decel lane for right turns into the commercial village as well as a southbound excel lane for cars turning south onto CR100. As a result of the issues regarding queue lengths and exclusion of office uses in the initial analysis, Staff cannot conclude that traffic impacts from this development have fully addressed and satisfied the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding traffic generation, in 2002, the County conducted a traffic count study which revealed 4,300 average daily vehicles travel past the project site on CR 100 between the intersection with SH82 and Carbondale. Admittedly, this is 4 -year old data; however, this is based on actual counts over a 168 hour period divided by seven days a week. The Applicant' s traffic analysis states that 8 there will be 15 AM peak hour and 54 PM peak hour driveway trips out of the commercial village onto CR 100 equal to 886 daily driveway trips. Interestingly, the same traffic analysis shows that the trips generated from the project in 2006 will be identical to the trips generated from the project in 2010 (four years later) which is somewhat counter -intuitive in that background traffic grows over time which is the very basis for the Applicant's proposal. More specifically, the application makes the point that existing and anticipated future traffic volumes in the area warrant this commercial growth, yet the traffic study shows no more additional trips will be generated by the commercial center in 2010 than will be presently generated in 2006. Staff is perplexed by this analysis specifically from a so called neighborhood need perspective. If the neighborhood grows one would naturally assume traffic increases would occur concurrently. It is in this way that the percentage of folks with needs also grows, yet the study shows the neighborhood need locked into a 2006 trip scenario with no growth in trips to and from the commercial village. See the study's counts below using AM(PM) trips: 2006 Wee • ay Background Tra is Plus 2 . 0 ee • ay = ac groun • ra is • us Project Traffic Volumes Project Traffic Volumes 4.0 Commercial & Industrial Uses GOALS Garfield County will encourage the retention and expansion of convenient, viable and compatible commercial development capable of providing a wide variety of goods and services to serve the citizens of the County. Future, long-term commercial and industrial development in western Garfield County and at interchanges along 1-70. 9 • Staff Response This goal expresses that commercial development that is convenient, viable, and compatible is encouraged in Garfield County. With this goal in mind, the Applicant did not submit a marketing / business plan in the application that demonstrates the viability of the proposed commercial village. Staff questions the viability of the specific commercial businesses having to compete with existing and established businesses that provide much wider goods and services only 31/2 miles away in two directions in either Carbondale or El Jebel. Further, much of the traffic that the Applicant believes warrants commercial growth at this intersection is commuter traffic which will generally shop at the trip end or beginning where goods and services are cheaper and more convenient rather than stop half way adding to the commuting time. Additionally, Staff surmises that the existing shoppers in both the upper residential reaches of Missouri Heights and the surrounding residential areas on the valley floor will, once in their cars, go to either Carbondale or El Jebel because they can maximize their trip by having the wider variety of goods and services. Staff finds commercial development in this area is not compatible with the surrounding land uses and does not meet this goal. That maximized shopping experience in those already existing commercial areas provides the most convenience for County residents. Lastly, the second goal listed above recommends that future, long-term commercial development should be located in western Garfield County and at interchanges along I-70. Clearly, the present proposal is not supported by this goal. OBJECTIVES 4.1 To ensure that commercial development is compatible with adjacent land uses and mitigates impacts identified during the plan review process. 4.3 Encourage the location of commercial development in appropriate areas that maximizes convenience to County residents. 4.5 Ensure that the type, size and scope of industrial and commercial development are consistent with the long-term land use objectives of the County. Staff Response The proposed commercial village is not compatible with the majority of the surrounding land uses. To reiterate, Catherine Store should not be viewed as an intended and planned commercial land use and it should not be the basis for any expansion of commercial growth in this area. It is commercially zoned and designated only because it was an existing land use that had existed long before zoning was enacted in that part of the County and well long before the Comprehensive Plan designations were established in the 90s. Staff does not agree with expanding a use that because it was there it is assumed it was appropriate. This will only further exacerbate a use that was never envisioned for this location and serve to be the tipping point for much more intense commercial development at this intersection. Moreover, as stated by the author of the Comprehensive Plan, after considerable community dialogue and review of available commercial land in the area from El Jebel to Carbondale, that there was no support for commercial expansion in the area of Catherine Store. This was in fact manifested in the land use map that accompanied the approved document. There were substantive 10 • • discussions regarding areas for commercial expansion in the Roaring Fork Valley, and at no time was expansion ever envisioned for this area." Due to the long trips from rural areas of the County, the location of commercial opportunities should be in the existing communities where shoppers can maximize their trips making them most convenient trips. Staff would add that commercial growth in this area that purports to provide "convenience" goods and services may, in fact, add additional trips to the roads rather than reduce them because shoppers will not eliminate the existing shopping trips they already make to Carbondale, El Jebel and so on because of the distances they travel to shop. POLICIES 4.1 Commercial development will be encouraged in areas where existing infrastructure (water and wastewater facilities) are currently available. 4.3 Landscaping and screening will be required to address specific visual impacts of industrial and commercial development. Staff Response It appears that water and wastewater infrastructure exist in the area proposed for a commercial designation, although it is not certain that the project can connect to the AAE / BC water system. If not, they will create their own which conflicts with policy 4.1. Further, Staff believes that the inference to existing infrastructure means that these are urban services rather than anyone who can construct a private water / wastewater system in the rural areas of the County. (This is consistent with the goals / objectives / policies of Section 10.0 of the Comprehensive Plan that speaks to development outside of the areas of urban influence.) The Applicant asserts that the development will be screened through landscaping and not visible from SH82 because it sits behind Catherine Store. Staff disagrees and finds that the commercial village will be highly visible not only from SH82 but also CR 100. 10.0 Urban areas of Influence GOALS Allow for comments on impacts to communities even if outside a community's area of urban influence. Promote development in and around existing communities Staff Response Staff referred the application to both Eagle County and the Town of Carbondale for review and comment. Eagle County' s comments placed review emphasis on potential traffic impacts and the type and amount of commercial development that is appropriate in that location. The Town of Carbondale.....Staff finds the second goal listed above to be the most important to the main request. Specifically, that goal is to promote development in and around existing communities. The Applicant suggests the development is defined as "neighborhood commercial" to be developed into a "commercial village." While the application proposes a list of uses -by -right which are proposed as 11 • • "neighborhood commercial" uses, Staff disagrees with the use of the term "neighborhood commercial." From a planning perspective, the term is actually an urban term. The Applicant proposes to insert an urban -style use in what can be accurately characterized as a regional rural subdivision setting. Further, Staff asserts that any convenience needs of residents in the rural subdivision region are currently being met by Catherine Store. To be consistent with the goal above, commercial development of this type should be "in and around existing communities." OBJECTIVES 10.2 Retain rural character outside of community limits Staff Response Garfield County is largely a rural agricultural county with a "right to farm" ethic / land use fabric which is reinforced with the Agricultural / Residential / Rural Density (ARRD) zoning which governs almost all of the privately owned land in the County. As viewed along major County corridors such as State Highway 82, commercial growth can severely erode the rural character that helps to separate where one municipality stops and another begins and only exacerbates traffic flows and turning conflicts on that corridor. Staff finds that commercial development in this location is the epitome of leap -frog development contributing to sprawl along the 82 corridor and is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the intent of this objective. 10.5 Development that requires urban services will be encouraged to locate in areas where these services are available Staff Response It appears that water and wastewater infrastructure exist in the area proposed for a commercial designation, although it is not certain that the project can connect to the AAE / BC water system. If not, they will create their own water system which conflicts with policy 4.1. Further, Staff believes that the inference to existing infrastructure means that these are urban services rather than anyone who can construct a private water / wastewater system in the rural areas of the County. Carbondale's 3 -Mile Area Plan of 2000 The property is located within Carbondale' s 3 -Mile Area Plan which designates the property as Low Density Residential (10+ ac / du) and the immediate surrounding land uses as either existing subdivision, Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and General Commercial (Catherin Store property only). The Town reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments: We have reviewed Garfield County's Comprehensive Plan and the Town of Carbondale Comprehensive Plan and Three Mile Plan. These planning documents, in combination, are intended to guide growth and development in the rural areas around Carbondale, including the Catherine Store/Preshana Farm area. It appears that the small commercial area on the County's land use map was meant to reflect the existing convenience store (Catherine's Store). The area is small and it doesn't appear there was 12 • • any intention in the Plan for commercial growth beyond the convenience store level of commercial that exists. There are very few commercial areas shown along the Hwy. 82 corridor. It appears the commercial areas which are shown were meant to acknowledge existing commercial uses. The proposed uses in the "Commercial Neighborhood Village District" include banks, travel agencies, retail sales of clothes and footwear, and business, professional and medical offices. These are more destination type of uses and are far beyond the neighborhood convenience store use which exists. Such extensions are only appropriate if it is the intent of the County to pursue a commercial support area capable of serving the needs of more than the surrounding neighborhood. It is likely that this amount of commercial development and the proposed use list will require a broader market. Town Staff does not feel these types of uses are compatible in the rural residential area envisioned in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. The Proposed Land Use Districts and Methodology Table in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan sets out considerations to determine appropriate land uses in the County. That table suggests that land use compatibility and proximity to other urban areas are "critical" considerations in making a determination to change the designation to "General Commercial" use. Town Staff feels that it is difficult to support the change to "General Commercial" because of the rural residential nature of the area and the distance from urban areas of Carbondale and El Jebel. It is not clear what happens if a "General Commercial" designation is established in this location. Will this justify additional commercial expansion or greater residential densities in the future, requiring further changes to the adopted Plans? The Carbondale Three Mile Land Use Plan supports the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan in that it shows a small "General Commercial" area at the Katherine Store location. It does not show any expansion of a commercial area. The area around Catherine Store is designated as residential land use. When the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan was developed, the citizens of Carbondale and Town Staff were involved with the process. We appreciate the opportunity to express our support for the land use policies already set forth in the adopted community plans and recommend that the land use at this location not be altered in any way that 1) is inconsistent with the designated uses and 2) will require a change to the adopted plans to allow a piecemeal change in a use without broader consideration of the entire area. 2.0 Housing GOALS Encourage mix of housing types within a development. OBJECTIVES 2.1 To encourage adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents throughout Garfield County. 13 • • Staff Response As mentioned below, the original Preshana Farms PUD included 47 (free market) single-family dwelling units and three employee housing units intended to provide affordable housing to employees of the Equestrian Center. The present plan eliminates these three employee units and replaces them with 5 free market units and one Accessory Dwelling Unit. The Applicant believes that with the elimination of the equestrian component of the existing development, the need for those three employee units also dissolves. Staff finds that while the equestrian component would be eliminated, new employee opportunities are created with the proposed commercial village yet there is no mention of this accommodation for employees that could work in the commercial village. As a result, Staff finds the proposal conflicts with the goal of encouraging a mix of housing types within a development and the objective to encourage adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents throughout Garfield County. METHODOLOGY Section P/ (Methodology) of the Plan includes a summary of data sets and general approach the County used to develop existing conditions, environmental constraints, and proposed land use districts (and densities) for the County. This methodology / approach is manifested in the table shown on the following page which is intended to provide the criteria used to conceptually identify future land uses in the County. Based on Staff's analysis of the property and the proposed project's uses and design, Staff has provided an analysis using this matrix to determine development suitability. As the table illustrates, the General Commercial use may be suitable where Development Constraints are "moderate" which is also generally true for many other land uses in the County. More importantly, the Land Use Considerations including land use compatibility, road conditions, and distance from urban uses are of critical concern and infrastructure needs are of moderate concern for a General Commercial designation. Development Constraints Land Use Classifications General Commercial AAE Proposal Slope Constraints Moderate Minor Soil Constraints Moderate Moderate ISDS (Septic) Constraints Moderate Major Floodplain Constraints Moderate Minor Land Use Considerations Land Use Compatibility Critical Not Compatible Road Conditions Critical Uncertain Infrastructure Needs Moderate Uncertain Distance From Urban Uses Critical Not Compatible 14 Original Map Designation for Catherine Store It is important to note, in the original Comprehensive Plan land use designation process, the County designated the property containing Catherine Store as General Commercial to reflect the existing commercial land use. In fact, Catherine Store predated zoning as well as the designations in the Comprehensive Plan. So, rather than down -zone the property effectively making it a non -conforming use, the County simply zoned the property according to the existing use which held true for the Comprehensive Plan designation. In no way did the County initially determine that this property at the intersection of State Highway 82 and CR 100 should be commercial. Consistent with the rural agricultural nature of the County's land use fabric, the bulk of commercial activities in Garfield County are located either inside or near the County' s municipalities where urban services exist to support such intense uses and road networks are adequate to handle traffic generated from such uses. The random placement of commercial uses outside of these areas is not one that is encouraged from a responsible planning perspective. Staff received an email from Dave Michealson who was the original author of the Comprehensive Plan for Study Area I. He stated "after considerable community dialogue and review of available commercial land in the area from El Jebel to Carbondale, that there was no support for commercial expansion in the area of Catherine Store. This was in fact manifested in the land use map that accompanied the approved document. We had substantative discussion regarding areas for commercial expansion in the Roaring Fork Valley, and at no time was expansion ever envisioned for this area." (Exhibit Q) Land Use Compatibility (Critical Concern) Does a re -designation of the subject property from Residential Subdivision to General Commercial render a multitude of commercial land uses compatible with the surrounding land uses? The adjacent surrounding land uses are primarily residential with Catherine Store being the exception. Additionally, all of the land uses in the (, j general area include either agricultural land or residential subdivisions shown in the zoning map on the right. The intensity of commercial land uses placed in the middle of an area which is primarily characterized as a combination of rural agricultural land and residential subdivisions renders the commercial use incompatible with the majority of the surrounding land uses. This development presents a serious land use policy challenge to the Planning Commission regarding the future land uses of this interchange between Carbondale and El Jebel. If this property is changed to commercial, Staff expects the opposing two corners (NW and NE) to also request Comprehensive Plan and zone district changes to commercial so that this intersection becomes a major commercial node. Staff finds that commercial development at this location is not in the best interests of Garfield County residents or compatible with the intent of the Plan specifically since two municipalities exist 15 • • only 3.5 miles in either direction which contain ample commercial land to accommodate such uses. Road Conditions (Critical Concern) The public roads which are affected by the proposed General Commercial designation include County Road 100 (Catherine Store Road) and State Highway 82. The entrance to the commercial area of the subject property is directly off of CR 100 just south and on the same side as the entrance areas to Catherine Store. Both roads intersect at a signalized intersection. Objective 4.4 of the Plan states Ensure that commercial development is conducive to safe and efficient traffic flow, reduces vehicular movements and encourages alternate transportation modes and the use of mass transit. Commercial development at this location will add vehicular movements to the existing street network. The traffic study prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc found that the proposed project can be accommodated on the existing street network without any proposed improvements at the key intersections. Likewise, the project adds less than 20 percent of traffic on the south leg to SH -82. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) reviewed the traffic analysis agreed that the development will not increase traffic at the SH82 intersection by 20 percent therefore no access permit would be required for SH 82 and CR 100. CDOT also commented on the site plan that showed a realignment SH 82 Frontage road to align with development access point on CR 100. They agreed conceptually with the concept; however, an access permit would be required. It was not clear to CDOT if they actually had the right-of-way. Finally, CDOT commented that they did not see any information of queue lengths (backage from signal). There might be some concern with vehicles blocking the Catherine Store driveway. CDOT suggests that this development provide an easement for Catherine Store to use their access (backage road). Catherine Store access will become an issue in the future when traffic volumes increase on CR 100. Staff agrees with CDOT's concern of long traffic queue lengths attempting to turn right into the commercial village which may back up and impact Catherine Store or even queue lengths attempting to turn off of SH82 onto CR 100. While it appears the specific traffic generated from the proposal may not contribute a 20% increase in traffic at the CR 100 / SH82 intersection now, a rezoning of the property will only lead to more commercial rezoning on opposing corners which will greatly impact the intersection which means the County is fiscally responsible for making improvements to the intersection. Regarding traffic generation, the application states the proposed use will generate 886 daily driveway trips. In 2002, the County conducted a traffic count study which revealed 4,300 average daily Cetterine Score 82 APPROXIMATE LOCA OF TRAFFIC COUNTER (CR100....) RAFT #`ark—N—Rise PROXIMATE LOCATION TRAFFIC COUNTER (C RI00-562..) OD CONMERC L LSTRICT LOCATION DUMTER MIME REALIGNMENT OF FRONTAGE ROAD 16 • • vehicles travel past the project site on CR 100 between the intersection with SH82 and Carbondale. Admittedly, this is 4 -year old data; however, this is based on actual counts over a 168 hour period divided by seven days a week. The Applicant's traffic analysis states that there will be 15 AM peak hour and 54 PM peak hour driveway trips (or 886 daily trips) out of the commercial village onto CR 100. Interestingly, the same traffic analysis shows that the trips generated from the project in 2006 will be identical to the trips generated from the project in 2010 (four years later) which is somewhat counter- intuitive in that background traffic grows over time which is the very basis for the Applicant's proposal. More specifically, the application makes the point that existing and anticipated future traffic volumes in the area warrant this commercial growth, yet the traffic study shows no more additional trips will be generated by the commercial center in 2010 than will be presently generated in 2006. The traffic analysis assumes a 2.1% increase in background traffic from 2006 to 2010. 2006 Weekday Background Tra Project Traffic Volumes ee •ay :ac grounra is Project Traffic Volumes Staff is perplexed by this analysis specifically from a so called neighborhood need perspective. If the "neighborhood" grows one would naturally assume traffic increases would occur concurrently. It is in this way that the percentage of folks with needs also grows, yet the study shows the neighborhood need locked into a 2006 trip scenario with no growth in trips to and from the commercial village. See the study's counts shown above using AM(PM) trips. Infrastructure Needs (Moderate Concern) The Applicant proposes to provide water to the commercial development from either a new private water system or by connecting to an existing water system currently serving Aspen Equestrian Estates and Blue Creek Ranch. The Applicant proposes to provide waste water service by connecting to the neighboring private central sewer system owned and maintained by the Ranch at the Roaring Fork. As stated above in Policy 4.1 of the Plan, commercial development will be encouraged in areas where existing infrastructure (water and wastewater facilities) are currently available. Additionally, the proposal does not conform to Policy 10.5 which states that development that requires urban services will be encouraged to locate in areas where these services are available. In this case, while it 17 • • appears commercial development can connect to an existing sewer system, it is uncertain if the proposed commercial development will be allowed to connect into the existing water system. In the event it cannot, the Applicant proposes to construct their own which conflicts with Policy 4.1 which requires that urban services be in place and available to serve commercial development. Distance from Urban Areas (Critical Concern) The property is approximately 3.5 miles east of Carbondale and 3.5 miles west of El Jebel which represent the two nearest urban areas. The Plan considers this issue to be of critical concern so that commercial growth occurs in or near the already commercially developed areas in the municipalities which maximizes convenience to County and municipal residents. This is specifically identified as an Objective 4.3 which encourages the location of commercial development in appropriate areas that maximizes convenience to County residents. Further, as viewed along major County corridors such as State Highway 82, commercial growth will erode the rural character that helps to separate where one municipality stops and another begins and does not exacerbate traffic flows and turning conflicts along major County corridors. Staff finds that commercial development in this location is the epitome of leap -frog development contributing to sprawl along the 82 corridor and is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The application's main argument for commercial development in this location is that the large volume of existing and projected traffic primarily coming from the Missouri Heights and nearby valley floor areas necessitates more commercial growth in this location as a close shopping convenience rather than having to drive the extra 3.5 miles either way to Carbondale or El Jebel to pick up dry cleaning, milk, etc. which is typical of a "neighborhood commercial" purpose. Staff disagrees. The notion that traffic volume alone warrants or necessitates commercial growth in this area is simply short sided and ignores prudent long term planning principles of managed growth. If this logic is taken further, every intersection along any major thoroughfare should be commercially developed because there is traffic. First, Staff finds that the proposed type and size of "neighborhood commercial" uses go well beyond the uses / services typically or commonly found in the traditional neighborhood commercial use. Further, Staff surmises those neighborhood commercial needs are currently being met by the existing Catherine Store. As a practical matter, Staff finds that the trips made by residents in the Missouri Heights area for commercial reasons will more likely end up in either Carbondale or El Jebel due to the ability to maximize the wider variety of services and goods provided in those locals so that one trip satisfies those needs rather than multiple trips just to Aspen Equestrian Estates due to the long distance traveled. Further, if anything, commercial growth in that location will add traffic volumes to the road system because trips made to this development will be in addition to the existing trips to Carbondale and El Jebel and not instead of them. The farther one has to travel for shopping, the fewer overall trips are made. Summary of Review for Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Staff finds the germane goals, policies, and objectives in the Plan do not support commercial growth at this location. Primarily, Staff finds a re -designation of the area to allow commercial growth is not compatible with surrounding land uses, directly conflicts with the goals and policies of the Plan 18 • • promoting development in and around existing communities, retaining rural character outside of community limits, and encouraging development that requires urban services to locate in areas where these services are available. As viewed along major County corridors such as State Highway 82, commercial growth at this location will erode the rural character that helps to separate where one municipality stops and another begins and exacerbates traffic flows and turning conflicts. The original Plan designations never envisioned commercial growth in this area particularly since substantial commercial growth exists only 3.5 miles in either direction in Carbondale & El Jebel. Staff finds expanding the existing commercial area of Catherine Store is a notion based on poor planning, in that, if Catherine Store did not already exist prior to zoning, the County would not have designated any of the area commercial. Lastly, the Applicant suggests the development is defined as "neighborhood commercial" to be developed into a "commercial village" which Staff finds to be soft terms that incorrectly define the real intended uses. While the application proposes a list of uses -by -right which are proposed as "neighborhood commercial" uses, Staff disagrees with the use of the term "neighborhood commercial." The "neighborhood" described in the application is, in reality, an entire regional sub - basin of the County with a land area of approximately 26 sq. miles encompassing Missouri Heights and lower valley floor residential development. The Applicant proposes to insert an urban -style land use in what can be accurately characterized as a regional rural residential / agricultural setting. Further, Staff asserts that any convenience needs of residents in the rural subdivision region are currently being met by Catherine Store. Staff finds that commercial development in this location is the epitome of leap -frog development contributing to sprawl along the 82 corridor and is not compatible with the goals, objectives, policies and methodology of the Comprehensive Plan. B. Amendment to the Preshana Farms PUD As the second request in the application, the Applicant proposes to amend the zoning designation of the subject 15.2 -acre lot in the Preshana Farms PUD from Open Space and Equestrian Center to the following zone districts: ➢ Open Space District (5.23 acres) ➢ R-10 Single -Family Residential District (1.2 acres) ➢ Utility District (1 acre) ➢ Residential Equestrian District; and (5.17 acres) ➢ Neighborhood Commercial Village District (3.31 acres) Should the Planning Commission agree to not amend the Comprehensive Plan from Residential Subdivision to General Commercial, the proposed commercial village would not be allowed as a use in the PUD. The following section is an analysis of the proposed PUD. Regulatory requirements are provided in bold italics followed by a Staff response. 4.04 CONSISTENCY WITH THE MASTER/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN No PUD shall be approved unless it is found by the County Commissioners to be in general conformity with the County's Master/Comprehensive plan(s). When appropriate, an application 19 • • for an amendment to the Garfield County Master/Comprehensive Plan may be made as part of a PUD application. Any application for Master/Comprehensive Plan amendment must be approved by the Planning Commission, prior to its recommendation on the PUD application, and may occur at the same meeting. Applications for Comprehensive Plan amendment shall include justification for the amendment based upon criteria for establishing land use designations contained in the Master/Comprehensive Plan. Staff Response For the reasons listed above, Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment finds that the proposed commercial uses are not supported by the Residential Subdivision designation in the Comprehensive Plan. 4.06 INTERNAL COMPATIBILITY OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS It is recognized that certain individual land uses, regardless of their adherence to all the design elements provided for in this section, might not exist compatibly with one another. Therefore, a proposed PUD shall be considered from the point of view of the relationship and compatibility of the individual elements of the Plan, and no PUD or shall be approved which contains incompatible elements internally or with neighboring property. Staff Response Regarding external compatibility, Staff finds the adjacent surrounding land uses are primarily residential with Catherine Store being the exception. Additionally, all of the land uses in the general area include either agricultural land or residential subdivisions also shown in the zoning map to the right. The intensity of commercial land uses placed in the middle of an area which is primarily characterized as a combination of rural agricultural land and residential subdivisions renders the commercial use incompatible with the majority of the surrounding land uses. 4.07 STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS 4.07.02 The number of off-street parking spaces for each use in each PUD shall not be less than the requirements for like uses in other zoning districts, except that the County Commissioners may increase or decrease the required number of off-street parking spaces in consideration of the following factors: (1) Estimated number of cars owned by occupants of dwellings in the PUD; (2) Parking needs of non -dwelling uses; (3) Varying time periods of use whenever joint use of common parking areas is proposed. Staff Response The Supplemental regulations in the Zoning Resolution sets out the parking requirements for retail and service commercial uses at 1 space per 200 sq. ft. of floor area (except storage area) which would require 100 spaces for the proposed 20,000 sq. ft. The plan proposes 110 spaces which covers the parking requirements. 20 • • 4.07.03 The PUD shall meet the following site plan criteria unless the applicant can demonstrate that one (I) or more of them is not applicable or that a practical solution has been otherwise achieved: (I) The PUD shall have an appropriate relationship to the surrounding area, with unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area being minimized. Staff Response With the exception of Catherine Store, the surrounding area is rural residential and agricultural in nature. Staff finds the proposed commercial uses will have an adverse affect on the surrounding area by increasing traffic volumes and traffic turning conflicts on CR 100 and at the CR 100 / SH82. Staff believes the traffic analysis does fully address the potential for queue lengths and traffic generated from office uses proposed in the uses -by -right. 4.07.04 The maximum height of buildings may be increased above the maximum permitted for like buildings in other zone districts in relation to the following characteristics of the proposed building: (I) It's geographical location; (2) The probable effect on surrounding slopes and mountainous terrain; (3) Unreasonable adverse visual effect on adjacent sites or other areas in the immediate vicinity; (4) Potential problems for adjacent sites caused by shadows, loss of air circulation or loss of view; (5) Influence on the general vicinity, with regard to extreme contrast, vistas and open space; (6) Uses within the proposed building; and Staff Response The application proposes maximum building heights of 20 feet which is 5 feet less than the underlying ARRD zoning building heights. 4.07.05 The maximum lot areas and the minimum setback restrictions may be decreased below and the maximum lot coverage may be increased above those applicable to like buildings in other zone districts to accommodate specific building types with unusual orientation on the lot or relationship between buildings. The averaging of lot areas shall be permitted to provide flexibility in design and to relate lot size to topography, but each lot shall contain an acceptable building site. The clustering of development with useable common open areas shall be permitted to encourage provision for, and access to, common open areas and to save street and utility construction and maintenance costs. Such clustering is also intended to accommodate contemporary building types which are not spaced individually on their own lots but share common side walls, combined service facilities or similar architectural innovations, whether or not providing for separate ownership of land and buildings. Architectural style of buildings shall not be a basis for denying approval of a PUD application. 21 • • Staff Response The lots proposed in the commercial district are at least 22,600 sq. ft. which is larger than lots in the County's commercial zone districts which have a minimum lot size of 7,500 sq. ft. The proposed four residential lots have lot sizes starting at 11,990 sq. ft. which Staff agrees are compatible with existing platted lots in the Preshana Farms PUD. The internal site design provides usable open space with pedestrian trails that work well with the overall internal site design. 4.07.06 The overall residential density shall be no greater than two (2) dwelling units per gross acre within the PUD; provided, however, that the County Commissioners may allow an increase to a maximum of fifteen (15) dwelling units per gross acre in areas where public water and sewer systems, owned and operated by a municipal government or special district (as defined by Section 32-1-103(20), C.R.S.) are readily available and the prior zoning classification allowed residential densities greater than two (2) dwelling units per gross acre, such increased densities shall nevertheless comply with the maximum lot coverage, minimum setback, maximum floor area ratio, maximum building height and parking standards of such prior zoning classification. The overall average residential density shall be calculated by summing the number of residential dwelling units planned within the boundary of the PUD and dividing by the total gross area expressed in acres within the boundary of the PUD. The density of dwelling units in any particular area may be greater than the maximum permitted for a like use in other zone districts. Averaging and transferring of densities within the PUD shall be allowed upon a showing of conformance with the purposes of this section through appropriate design features within the PUD that will achieve high standards of design and livability. Where the application is a TPUD, and showing of conformance with the purposes of this section is deemed appropriate by the board, limitations set on previously zoned density of under two dwelling units per gross acre may be removed and the applicant may propose higher overall densities and exceed standard building height limitations otherwise specified herein, provided only that standards specified in 4.07.04 are considered. Special attention shall be given to fire protection and equipment needs triggered by such a proposal. Any proposal requesting a density above 5 dwelling units per gross acre within 2000 feet of a proposed or developed mass transit station or terminal shall provide 10% additional affordable housing units (In Study Area One, a total of 20%) with those units being within 2000 feet of the proposed station or terminal, even though previous zoning did not allow that level of density for those developments within 2000 feet. The intent of this section of the Resolution is to permit both the PUD allowance of increased density provided that 10% of the proposed units are affordable units, and an additional increased density, where increased density is proximate to and supports a transit station or terminal, and that higher density within 2000 feet of the transit station or terminal. The applicant must show a concentration of affordable units equaling 20% of the proposed housing stock where density exceeds five units per acre in Study Area One. 4.07.15.02 For Lands With Any Land Use Designation Other Than High Density Residential: (1) Planned Unit Developments - All Planned Unit Development proposals, and Planned Unit Development Amendment requests which results in an increase in density, must provide that at least 10% of the housing mix are affordable housing units. Providing 10% affordable housing units will not, by itself, be sufficient to fulfill the PUD requirement for a mix of housing. 22 4.07.15.04 Any Planned Unit Development Amendment request, which results in an increase in density, shall be subject to these regulations. Staff Response The Preshana Farms PUD was amended in 1998 to allow for a maximum of 50 dwelling units in the PUD, of which, 47 units were single-family units and 3 units were employee housing units in the Equestrian District. The present PUD amendment proposes four new single-family lots to contain a single-family dwelling unit and main house and guest house (ADU) on the Residential / Equestrian Lot. This PUD amendment will eliminate the three employee units approved for the Equestrian Zone District and add 6 new single-family units for a total of 53 units. As a result, the proposed PUD amendment will result in an increase in density and is subject to the County' s affordable housing regulations. Specifically as stated above, "All Planned Unit Development proposals, and Planned Unit Development Amendment requests which results in an increase in density, must provide that at least 10% of the housing mix are affordable housing units." This is reaffirmed by Section 4.07.15.04 which states "Any Planned Unit Development Amendment request, which results in an increase in density, shall be subject to these regulations." Based on the above, Staff calculates the 10% of the units proposed in the amended Preshana Farms PUD (if amended to include the six new units for a total of 53 units) to be 5.3 affordable housing units required. The proposed PUD does not contain any provision for these units. 4.07.08 All uses, which are permitted in the underlying zone district or consistent with the land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan, or approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, may be permitted in PUDs. The uses, which shall be permitted in any particular PUD shall be those permitted by the resolution zoning the particular area PUD. Staff Response Staff finds the proposed commercial uses are not consistent (not permitted uses) with the original underlying zoning of ARRD or the Residential Subdivision designation of the Comprehensive Plan. 4.07.09 Twenty-five percent (25%) of the total area within the boundary of any PUD shall be devoted to Common Open Space. Not more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the Common Open Space shall be an area of water classified as commercial open space. Of the 25% open space requirement within PUDs, no more than 40% of the 25% total required, shall be limited use open space, with the balance being retained as one or more of the remaining open space categories, listed above. Provided, however, that the County Commissioners may reduce such requirement if they find that such decrease is warranted by the design of, and the amenities and features incorporated into the Plan, and that the needs of the occupants of the PUD for Common Open Space can be met in the proposed PUD. 4.01.01 Common Open Space: A parcel or parcels of land, or a combination of land and water within the site designated for a Planned Unit Development, designed and intended primarily for the use or enjoyment of residents, occupants and owners of the Planned Unit Development. Categories of open space are defined as follows: 23 • • (1) Useable open space: Any land retained in an open manner having average slope of 25%or less across the entire parcel, or is an existing or proposed agricultural area; (2) Recreational open space: Any open space land to be developed into an area or areas for organized or unorganized recreational activities, examples would include, but are not limited to: soccer/football playing fields, parks, baseball/softball diamonds, or similar uses; (3) Commercial open space: Any open space land that would be developed into an area or areas of land, for which a fee would be charged for use. Examples would include, but not limited to: golf courses, water ski lakes, horse riding facilities, or similar uses; (4) Limited use open space: Any land to be retained as open space that has an average slope greater than 25%. Staff Response The original Preshana Farms PUD provided 30.6 acres of open space which equated to 52.85 % of the PUD in the "Open Space District." This open space acreage was not modified in the 1998 amendments to the PUD. This can be seen in the original zoning map for Preshana Farms PUD on the right. The present application states that Preshana Farms PUD has 22.387 acres (38.7%) of open space and that the proposed rezoning will actually increase the total open space percentage to 22.617 acres or 39.1%. It appears the open space provided in the PUD Plan satisfies the PUD requirement. 5,05 PRESRAN I FAR,1 4.09 Development in Stages The Applicant proposes the development be completed in the following three phases: Phase I: Subdivision Process to define and subdivide the "Equestrian Lot"; Phase II: Re -subdivision to define and subdivide the four residential lots; and Phase III: Re -subdivision to define and create the Commercial Village. This phasing plan is problematic because with any development in Garfield County, the first phase of the development of a PUD shall also include all promised amenities to be platted in the fist phase. IN this case, all of the proposed open space (which includes the development and transfer of the trails, pond, etc. to the POA) shall occur in the first phase. This is so that all of the residential owners in the PUD may enjoy the promised amenities from the beginning. Should any PUD be approved, Staff recommends the Board require all proposed open space (which includes the development and transfer of the trails, pond, etc. to the POA) shall occur in the first phase. Section 4:34 of the Subdivision Regulations (Preliminary Plan) requires subdivisions of 100 lots or less be fully platted within 5 years. As such, the Applicant proposes the following timeline which appear to satisfy this timeline. 24 • • Phase I: Submit a Preliminary Plan Application w/in one year of approval of the PUD (this assumes this is also referred to as "Filing One") Phase II: Submit a final plat for the residential lots w/in one year of the approval of the Preliminary Plan Application from Phase l (assuming this is "Filing Two") Phase III: Submit a final plat for the Third Phase to include the re -subdivision of the commercial lots as "Filing Three." C. Sketch Plan Review The following section addresses common subdivision components thawill need to be addressed by the Applicant as part of their Preliminary Plan and Final Plat submittal to the County. 1) Domestic & IWater The development proposes to provide potable water from either the existing Aspen Equestrian Estates / Blue Creek Ranch (AAE/ BC) central water system or to construct their own private central water supply to be owned and maintained by the Property Owners Association. The Application contains a water report prepared by Zancanella & Associates which describes both systems here: This report wifl discuss two water supply alternatives. Scenario one, which wiU be referred to as the "AEE/BC" scanaho, involves the connection of the proposed neighborhood commercial village to the existing Aspen EquesthCreek water system (AEE/BC system). The AEE/BC system is currently in Operetion, serving the residential developments at the Aspen Equestrian Estates and the Blue Creek subdivisions. It is a community water system regulated by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (C[)PHE).under F'VV8|O#C[X]123152. The domestic water system consists of a 200.000 gallon storage tank, two wells, chlorination oystenn, fire -flow pumpo, and distribution system. A schematic of this scenario is represented in Figure 1. The second scenario, to be referred to as the "Commercial Village POA (Property Owners Association) scenario~, involves the construction of domestic and raw water oystenom, separate from the AEE/BC system. The Commercial ViUage POA system wouid consist of the existing Pinto Welt, a proposed backup weU, a treatment buHding, and a 30,000 gailon domestic storage tank. The Commercial Village POA system would utilize raw water irrigation and a 2500 gpm raw water (from the pond) pump station for fire flowrequirements. Figure 2 shows a schematic drawing of the Commercial Village POA scenario. Prior tothe filing ofthe subdivision preliminary plan for there -platting of the Equestrian Lot,oneoftheaeoot�U nsv�heoe|ootedanddetaUedangineer designs will be providedot that time in compliance with Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. Staff referred the Application to the Colorado Division of Water Resources which reviewed the proposal and concluded the : Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply under either alternative is physically adequate, however material injury will occur to decreed water rights unless the applicant obtains and maintains valid well permits for the existing and/or proposed wells pursuant to a court -approved plan for augmentation or pursuant to the District's temporary substitute supply plan. Also, the use of the irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and approval of a change of water right application by the water court may be necessary if the place of use is changed. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Cynthia Love at this office for assistance. 25 • • Resource Engineering reviewed the proposal on behalf of the County and provided the following comments on the proposed water supply systems. Both alternatives are feasible from both a water rights and water supply perspective. The State Division of Water Resources has issued a confusing letter of potential "Material Injury" on the basis that there is no guarantee that the State will issue well permits. The project is in the BWCD Area A and the State has never denied a well permit application submitted pursuant to an Area A water contract. It is our understanding that the BWCD and the Applicant are seeking clarification from the DWR on their review letter. The Applicant should resolve this issue prior to the Preliminary Plan Submittal. Staff cannot, with certainty, find that there is no material injury to decreed water rights for the proposed water supply based on the State's letters. As such, Staff cannot make a determination that the proposal has satisfied Section 4.08.05(7)(i) which requires that the PUD has a legally and physically adequate water supply. Section 4:91 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that a water supply plan, at the same scale as the Preliminary Plan, shall provide the following information in graphic and/or written form: A. In all instances, evidence that a water supply, sufficient in terms of quality, quantity and dependability, shall be available to ensure an adequate supply of water for the proposed subdivision. Such evidence may include, but shall not be limited to: 1. Evidence of ownership or right of acquisition or sue of existing and proposed water rights; 2. Historic use and estimated yield of claimed water rights; 3. Amenability of existing right to change in use; 4. Evidence that public or private water owners can and will supply water to the proposed subdivision, including the amount of water available for use within the subdivision by such providers, the feasibility of extending service to the area, proof of the legal dependability of the proposed water supply and the representation that all necessary water rights have been obtained or will be obtained or adjudicated, prior to submission of the final plat; and 5. Evidence concerning the potability of the proposed water supply for the subdivision. B. If a central supply and distribution system is to be provided, a general description of the system, as designed by a Colorado registered engineer. In addition: 1. Nature of the legal entity which will own and operate the water system; and 2. Proposed method of financing the water system. C. If connection is to be made to an existing water system, a letter from an authorized representative of said system staging that the proposed development will be served, and evidence from either the Colorado State Engineer's Office or Water Court, Water Division No. 5, that the existing water system presently possesses adequate legal water supply to serve the proposed development; 26 • • D. If individual water systems shall be provided by lot owners, a report indicating the availability of ample potable ground water at reasonable depths throughout the subdivision and the expected quality and long-term yield of such wells, with the written report by a registered professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado, qualified to perform such work; and E. If applicable, a Plan of Augmentation and a plan for subdivision water supplies, as required by law, with the supporting engineering work signed by a Colorado registered engineer, shall be submitted by the applicant, even if the applicant is not the actual supplier of water. Section 9:51 requires an adequate potable and irrigation water supply shall be available to all lots within a subdivision, taking into consideration peak demands to service total development population, irrigation uses, and adequate fire protection requirements in accordance with recognized and customary engineering standards. 9:52 Individual wells may be used as the water supply, provided the applicant has submitted the required documentation to the appropriate water court, and the Colorado Division of Water Resources will approve well drilling permits for all lots within the development. 9:53 Central water systems shall be designed by an engineer qualified to design water systems and be a registered professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado. Central water and treatment and storage facilities shall be approved by the Colorado Department of Health. All lines in a central water system should be looped, with no dead ends included in the system. Where dead ends are proposed for cul-de-sacs, there will either be a fire hydrant or blow -off valve at the end of the line. 9:54 Water supply stems, on -lot or otherwise located in a floodplain, shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration and avoid impairment during or subsequent to flooding. 9:55 All water mains shall be a minimum diameter of four inches (4"), provided storage facilities adequate for fire protection are available. 2) Waste Disposal The Applicant proposes to connect to an existing central wastewater system owned and operated by the Ranch at the Roaring Fork (the Ranch) which is a system currently regulated by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). To this end, the Application contains a letter from the Ranch in Tab 13 which states that the HOA has agreed to privide sewer treatment services to AAE for up to 64 EQRs for residential and commercial uses pursuant to an agreement between the two parties. These taps have been purchased by AAE. Section 4:92 of the Subdivision regulations shall require the Applicant submit a sanitary sewage disposal plan, at the same scale as the Preliminary Plan, and shall provide the following information in graphic and/or written form: • If public or private sewage treatment facilities are to be provided by an existing district or through connection to an existing sewer system, evidence that the treatment facility or 27 • • system can and will provide adequate sewage treatment for the proposed subdivision. In addition: 1. Letter from an authorized representative of the facility or system stating that the proposed development can and will be served; 2. Nature of the legal entity which will own and operate the sewage treatment works; and 3. Proposed method of financing the sewage treatment works; 3) Roads /Access The access to the lot proposed for redevelopment has access to a public right-of-way by way of CR 100 along the lot's easterly boundary as well as along an internal subdivision road in Aspen Equestrian Estates called "Equestrian Way." The Applicant proposes to provide direct access to the Commercial Village from CR 100. The large residential / equestrian lot also has an existing access from CR 100 south of the proposed access into the commercial village. Lastly, the four smaller residential lots would have direct access from the existing entrance road (Equestrian Way) into AAE. It appears the internal roadway serving the four new small residential lots is adequate to handle the ADT produced from these lots as Equestrian is an improved 70 ft. wide ROW. In order to better accommodate the turning traffic into the commercial village from CR 100, the Applicant proposes an additional turning lane to southbound traffic to decel as they make right turns into the Commercial Village. Similarly, the traffic making right turns in a southbound direction out of the development will be accommodated by a new accel lane which tapers back into existing travel lanes. The Application contains a traffic study prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc which ultimately found that the proposed project can be accommodated on the existing street network without any proposed improvements at the key intersections. Likewise, the project adds less than 20 percent of traffic on the south leg to SH -82. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) reviewed the traffic analysis agreed that the development will not increase traffic at the SH82 intersection by 20 percent therefore no access permit would be required for SH 82 and CR 100. CDOT also commented on the site plan that showed a realignment SH 82 Frontage road to align with development access point on CR 100. They agreed conceptually with the concept; however, an access permit would be required. It was not clear to CDOT if they actually had the right-of-way. Finally, CDOT commented that they did not see any information of queue lengths (backage from signal). There might be some concern with vehicles blocking the Catherine Store driveway. CDOT suggests that this development provide an easement for Catherine Store to use their access (backage road). Catherine Store access will become an issue in the future when traffic volumes increase on CR 100. Staff agrees with CDOT's concern of long traffic queue lengths attempting to turn right into the commercial village which may back up and impact Catherine Store or even queue lengths attempting to turn off of SH82 onto CR 100. While it appears the specific traffic generated from the proposal may not contribute a 20% increase in traffic at the CR 100 / SH82 intersection now, a rezoning of the property will only lead to more commercial rezoning on opposing corners which will greatly impact the intersection which means the County is fiscally responsible for making improvements to the intersection. 28 • • The access onto CR 100 from the Commercial Village requires a driveway permit from the County. The Road and Bridge Department reviewed the proposal and made the following recommendations: A. The excel / decel lane should be extended past the intersection of Equestrian Way and CR 100. After this lane is paved, a 2 -inch asphalt overlay should be placed on the entire section of CR 100 from Highway 82 to the bridge on the Roaring Fork River; B. All entrances to CR 100 will have an access permit issued by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department in place. If access permits have not been issued prior then applications for access permits should be submitted to Garfield County Road & Bridge Department; C. A stop sign will be placed at all entrances to CR 100. The signs and installation shall be as required in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). If the County does not own a 30 -foot ROW from the center line of CR 100 the entire length of the property then a 30 -foot easement shall be deeded to Garfield County; and D. All fences and structures encumbering this ROW shall be removed back to the new ROW at the sub -dividers expense prior to final approval by the BOCC. (Exhibit I) Resource Engineering reviewed the road and traffic analysis and stated the traffic study prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. indicates that no improvements are required to County Road 100 or the existing and proposed intersections. However, it appears that the report proposes that County Road 100 would have a southbound acceleration lane for right turns out of the commercial village, a short deceleration lane for right turns into the commercial village, and two northbound lanes in the commercial village area to minimize stacking behind left turns into the village area. We believe these improvements should be incorporated into any approval and the design of the project for the preliminary plan submittal. 4) Traffic As mentioned above, in 2002, the County conducted a traffic count study which revealed 4,300 average daily vehicles travel past the project site on CR 100 between the intersection with SH82 and Carbondale. Admittedly, this is 4 -year old data; however, this is based on actual counts over a 168 hour period divided by seven days a week. The Applicant's traffic analysis that there will be 15 AM peak hour and 54 PM peak hour driveway trips. Interestingly, the same traffic analysis shows that the trips generated from the project in 2006 will be identical to the trips generated from the project in 2010 (four years later) which is somewhat counter- intuitive in that background traffic grows over time which is the very basis for the Applicant's proposal. More specifically, the application makes the point that existing and anticipated future traffic volumes in the area warrant this commercial growth, yet the traffic study shows no more additional trips will be generated by the commercial center in 2010 than will be presently generated in 2006. Staff is perplexed by this analysis specifically from a so called neighborhood need perspective. If the neighborhood grows one would naturally assume traffic increases would occur concurrently. It is in this way that the percentage of folks with needs also grows, yet the study shows the neighborhood need locked into a 2006 trip scenario with no growth in trips to and from the commercial village. 29 • • 5) Drainage/ Floodplain Issues The property is not located within a defined / mapped floodplain. The application contained a drainage analysis prepared by High Country Engineering which stated that the proposed conditions will have runoff rates less than historic rates, so no on-site detention is required. The proposed development will have a landscape pond which will be used as a water quality feature. The Preliminary Plan application, pursuant to Section 4:80 of the Subdivision regulations of 1984 shall address the following: A drainage plan, at the same scale as the Preliminary Plan and prepared by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado, shall depict the following information in graphic and/or written form: A. Existing water courses and lakes; B. Limits of tributary areas, where practical; C. Computations of expected tributary flows; and D. Design of drainage facilities to prevent storm waters in excess of historic run-off from entering, damaging or being carried by existing drainage facilities, and to prevent major damage or flooding of residences in a one hundred (100) year storm, showing: 1. Area subject to inundation; and 2. Location and size of proposed culverts, bridges, ditches and channels. 9:41 Drainage easements, channels, culverts and required bridges shall be designed by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. 9:42 All drainage facilities shall be designed based on a twenty-five (25) year frequency storm. 9:43 Where new developments create run-off in excess of historic site levels, the use of detention ditches and ponds may be required to retain up to a one hundred (100) year storm. 9:44 All culverts shall be designed such that the exposed ends are protected by encasement in concrete or extended a minimum of three feet (3') beyond the driving surface on each side. Culverts, drainage pipes and bridges shall be designed and constructed in accordance with AASHO recommendations for an H-20 live load. 6) Soils / Geology / Radiation HP Geotech provided a preliminary geotechnical evaluation on this property on November 30, 2004 and did not find any significant soil or geologic hazards within the proposed development area. However, the potential exists for sink holes on the property and individual site specific soils and geotechnical investigations are necessary for the proposed development. Resource Engineering reviewed the proposal and stated "the project site is subject to the potential for development of sinkholes and poor surface soil conditions. As recommended in the HP Geotech report dated November 30, 2004, all building shall require site specific geotechnical analysis and foundation design." As is generally required based on the geology of this type, Staff requires the following plat note be placed on the final plat: "Foundations and Individual Sewage Disposal Systems shall be engineered by a Professional Registered Engineer within the State of Colorado." 30 In addition, the Applicant shall also address the following section in the Subdivision Regulations for Preliminary Plan: 4:70 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: GEOLOGY, SOIL, VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE Information on the following characteristics of the area proposed for subdivision shall be shown graphically and/or by reports, whatever is appropriate, for a complete description of existing conditions, and shall include: A. Geology - Description and/or illustration by a registered professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado of bedrock lithology and the stratigraphy of overlaying unconsolidated materials in sufficient detail to indicate any potential development problems resulting from groundwater, subsidence, instability in road excavations and ills, expansive soils, drainage patterns, structural bearing strength, or the like; 7) Vegetation / Weed Management The County Vegetation Manager reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments: 1) Regarding noxious weeds, the Applicant needs to provide a noxious weed inventory, map, and weed management plan. There are infestations of the county listed noxious weed, plumeless thistle, in the area designated as "Open Space District". The weed management needs to contain a commitment to timely treatment of county listed noxious weeds. The Applicant needs to assign responsibility for future weed management in common elements. Staff suggests that the Applicant address weed management in the covenants for the Association and for individual lot owners. 2) Regarding revegetation, the Applicant has not provided a revegetation plan that includes a plant materials list for review. Please quantify the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. This information will help determine the amount of security that will held for revegetation. Staff recommends a revegetation security once this information is provided. 3) Regarding soil management, it is requested that the Applicant provide a Soil Management Plan that includes: i. Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil, ii. a timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles, and iii. a plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more. Lastly, please provide a mosquito management plan for the proposed pond. 8) Assessment / Fees The property is not located in a Traffic Study Area as so designated by the County. As a result, there are no traffic impact fees to be collected. The development is located in the RE -1 School 31 • • District which requires a School Site Acquisition Fee to be paid at final plat and included as a component of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA). The project is also located in the Carbondale Fire Protection District which requires certain impact fees be paid to the District prior to signing the Final Plat. 9) Recommended Plat Notes/ Covenants Please be aware, the county requires the Applicant place the following plat notes be included on the final plat and in protective covenants: 1. "Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq. Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non - negligent agricultural operations." 2. "No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within the subdivision. One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. sew., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances." 3. "All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County." 4. "All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will be directed inward and downward towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries." 5. "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries." 10) Sketch Plan Comments and Preliminary Plan Review The Sketch Plan comments shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of the Planning Commission review. If a Preliminary Plan for the proposed subdivision is not 32 • • presented to the Garfield County Planning Commission by that date, the Applicant will have to submit an updated Sketch Plan application to the Planning Department for review and comparison with the original application. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the application for an amendment to the Proposed Land Use Designation Map of the Comprehensive Plan finding that: 1) That the proposed amendment is not in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare of citizens of Garfield County; 2) That the proposed amendment is not consistent with the following goals, objectives, and policies of Section III and Section IV (Methodology): 2.0 Housinjy (GOALS) ➢ Encourage mix of housing types within a development. OBJECTIVES 2.1 To encourage adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents throughout Garfield County. 4.0 Commercial & Industrial Uses (GOALS) ➢ Garfield County will encourage the retention and expansion of convenient, viable and compatible commercial development capable of providing a wide variety of goods and services to serve the citizens of the County. ➢ Future, long-term commercial and industrial development in western Garfield County and at interchanges along 1-70. OBJECTIVES 4.1 To ensure that commercial development is compatible with adjacent land uses and mitigates impacts identified during the plan review process. 4.3 Encourage the location of commercial development in appropriate areas that maximizes convenience to County residents. 4.5 Ensure that the type, size and scope of industrial and commercial development are consistent with the long-term land use objectives of the County. 33 • • POLICIES 4.1 Commercial development will be encouraged in areas where existing infrastructure (water and wastewater facilities) are currently available. 4.3 Landscaping and screening will be required to address 'specific visual impacts of industrial and commercial development. 10.0 Urban areas of Influence (GOALS) ➢ Promote development in and around existing communities OBJECTIVES 10.5 Retain rural character outside of community limits COMPREHENSIVE PLAN METHODOLOGY 1) The proposed commercial use is not compatible with the majority of the surrounding land uses which is a critical concern; 2) The proposed commercial use's traffic impacts to CR 100 is uncertain due to significant ambiguities in the Traffic Impact Report regarding accurate trip generation; 3) It remains uncertain that the proposed commercial uses can connect to existing central water service which may deem the private system inconsistent with Plan Goals regarding hooking into existing infrastructure; and 4) The proposed commercial development directly conflicts with goals and objectives regarding development outside of the areas of urban influence and is not compatible with this critical land use consideration. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ZONE DISTRICT AMENDMENT REQUEST Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the request amendment to the Preshana Farms PUD based on the following findings: 1) That all applicable regulations regarding a zone district amendment have not been fully complied with including, but not limited to the following Sections of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended: 4.07.03 The PUD shall meet the following site plan criteria unless the applicant can demonstrate that one (1) or more of them is not applicable or that a practical solution has been otherwise achieved: (I) The PUD shall have an appropriate relationship to the surrounding area, with unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area being minimized. 34 4.08.05(7)(i) The proposed water source is legally and physically adequate to service the PUD. 4.07.08 All uses, which are permitted in the underlying zone district or consistent with the land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan, or approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, may be permitted in PUDs. The uses, which shall be permitted in any particular PUD shall be those permitted by the resolution zoning the particular area PUD. 4.07.15.02 For Lands With Any Land Use Designation Other Than High Density Residential: (1) Planned Unit Developments - All Planned Unit Development proposals, and Planned Unit Development Amendment requests which results in an increase in density, must provide that at least 10% of the housing mix are affordable housing units. Providing 10% affordable housing units will not, by itself, be sufficient to fulfill the PUD requirement for a mix of housing. 4.07.15.04 Any Planned Unit Development Amendment request, which results in an increase in density, shall be subject to these regulations. 2) The proposed rezoning from "Open Space" and "Equestrian Center" to "Neighborhood Commercial Village District" is inconsistent with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 and not in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare of citizens of Garfield County. VIII. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS Because there are two separate requests which require motions, the Planning Commission should make a motion on the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan prior to making a motion on the question to rezone the property. A. Recommended Motion on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment "I would like to make a motion to deny the request for an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan of 2000 to redesignate a 3.31 acre portion of the of the 15.2 -acre property within the Preshana Farms PUD from Subdivision / Residential to General Commercial with the findings listed in Section VI of the Staff Memorandum." B. Recommended Motion on the PUD Amendment "I would like to make a motion to deny the request for an Amendment to the Preshana Farms PUD from Open Space and Equestrian Center to Open Space District, R-10 Single -Family Residential District, Utility District, Residential Equestrian District; and Neighborhood Commercial Village District (3.31 acres) with the findings listed in Section VI of the Staff Memorandum." 35 OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3589 www.water.state.co.us • STATE OF.COL RE '17'5 �. FEB 2 7 •r.dOb GARF';r 1.(:: BUILDING & February 22, 2006 Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th St Ste 401 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Dear Fred: Bill Owens Governor Russell George Executive Director Hal D. Simpson, P.E. State Engineer Re: Aspen Equestrian Estates arid The Preshana Farms PUD PUD Amendment Section 31, T7S, R87W, 6th PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 We have reviewed the above -referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 15.2 acres into 13 lots, including five single-family residential lots, 20,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, and 5.23 acres of open space. The domestic water supply is to be provided through either a new central system or connection to the existing Aspen Equestrian Estates/Blue Creek Water Association (AEE/BC) system. The proposed development is estimated to require a total of 30.15 EQRs, with 12.2. EQRs required for residential use (1.8 EQRs per residence), and 18.0 EQRs required for commercial use. Total diversions are estimated to be 19.88 AF annually and the consumptive use is estimated to be 7.79 AF annually. Irrigation water is to be provided by a raw water system using irrigation water rights, but no information was provided regarding these rights. Sewage disposal is to be provided through connection to the Ranch at Roaring Fork (Ranch) wastewater treatment facility. A letter of commitment from the Ranch was included with the submittal. The new central system would be supplied by the existing Pinto Well (Permit No. 53232-F) and the proposed Bay Well. Permit No. 53232-F allows use for ordinary household purposes inside 47 single-family dwellings and three employee dwellings, the irrigation of not more than 3.4 acres of gardens and lawns, the watering of livestock, and commercial uses associated with an equestrian facility. The simultaneous maximum pumping rate of the Pinto Well and any other well operating under Basalt Water Conservancy District (District) Contract No. 343 shall not exceed 100 gpm, and the combined annual amount appropriated by the Pinto Well and any other well operating under Basalt Contract No. 343 shall not exceed 36.4 AF. A copy of Basalt Contract No. 472 was included with the submittal, and shows the purchase of 8.2 AF/year for augmentation of domestic, municipal and commercial uses. Although sufficient augmentation water may have been obtained for the proposed development, the proposed uses are not included in the currently permitted uses, and a new permit is required. Although well permits for this area may be available if the wells are included in the District's temporary substitute supply plan, no well permit applications have been submitted for review by this office, and there is no guarantee that well permits can be issued. Furthermore, to be considered a legally reliable source of water, the wells must ultimately be included in a court -approved augmentation plan, since there is no guarantee that a temporary substitute supply plan will be renewed. • • Fred Jarman Page 2 Aspen Equestrian Estates February 22, 2006 A well test completed by Samuelson Pump Company indicates that the well produced 75 gpm over a 21 -hour period on May 17-18, 2005, that the maximum drawdown was 2.13 feet and that 97.6% recovery occurred within one hour. If the additional well has a similar production rate, and with sufficient storage capacity, the water supply should be physically adequate. The second alternative is to connect to the existing AEE/BC water system. As stated in CRS 30-28-133(3)(d), the subdivider is required to submit "Adequate evidence that a water supply that is sufficient in terms of quality, quantity, and dependability will be available to ensure an adequate supply of water for the type of subdivision proposed." Adequate evidence is usually provided in the form of a water resource report, prepared by a professional engineer or water consultant, which addresses the quality, quantity, and dependability issues. A report of this nature was not provided. See the Guidelines for Subdivision Water Supply Plan Reports (online at www.water.state.co.us/pubs/policies/memo subdivisions.pdf) for the necessary information. The use of the irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and a change of water rights application may be necessary to allow irrigation of lands that were not historically irrigated. Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply using a new central system is physically adequate, however material injury will occur to decreed water rights unless the applicant obtains and maintains valid well permits for the proposed wells pursuant to a court -approved plan for augmentation or pursuant to the District's temporary substitute supply plan. Regarding connection to the existing AEE/BC system, since insufficient information was provided, we cannot comment on the potential for injury to decreed water rights or the adequacy of the proposed water supply under the provisions of CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I). If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Cynthia Love at this office for assistance. Sincerely, Craig M. Lis,` E Water Resource Engineer CML/CJL/Aspen Equestrian Estates.doc cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5 Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38 GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department Review Agency Form Date Sent: February 2, 2006 Comments Due: February 28, 2006 Name of application: Aspen Equestrian Estates Subd. & Preshana farms Sent to: Garfield County Road & Brid$e Dept. Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to: Garfield County Building & Planning Staff contact: Fred Jarman 109 8th Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax: 970-384-3470 Phone: 970-945-8212 General Comments: Garfield County Road & Bridge Department has the following requests for this application. The excel / decel lane should be extended past the intersection of Equestrian Way and Cr. 100. After this lane is paved a 2 -inch asphalt overlay should be placed on the entire section of Cr. 100 from Highway 82 to the bridge on the Roaring Fork River. All entrances to Cr. 100 will have an access permit issued by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department in place. If access permits have not been issued prior then applications for access permits should be submitted to Garfield County Road & Bridge Department. A stop sign will be placed at all entrances to Cr. 100. The signs and installation shall be as required in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). If the County does not own a 30 -foot ROW from the center line of Cr. 100 the entire length of the property then a 30 -foot easement shall be deeded to Garfield County. All fences and structures encumbering this ROW shall be removed back to the new ROW at the sub -dividers expense prior to final approval by the BOCC. Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept By: Jake B. Mall Date February 16, 2006 Revised 3/30/00 ■■■■■ R E Sib URGE El ■■■■■ E N G I N E E R I N G Mr. Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 N RECEIVED MAR 0 2 2006 March 2, 2006 GARFIELD COural , BUILDING & PLANNING EXHIBIT J RE: Aspen Equestrian Estates — Equestrian Lot PUD and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Dear Fred: At the request of Garfield County, Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) has reviewed the PUD Amendment submittal for Aspen Equestrian Estates Subdivision and the Preshona Farms PUD located near Catherine's Store. The submittal is a 3 ring notebook dated December 2005. We reviewed the technical issues related to water rights and water supply, wastewater, drainage, soils/geology and traffic/roads. Our comments are presented below. WATER RIGHTS AND WATER SUPPLY The proposed neighborhood commercial village and 4 additional single family residential lots would be served through the existing central water system for Aspen Equestrian Estates and Blue Creek Ranch or through a separate domestic water system and raw water irrigation system owned and operated by a property owners association (POA). Both alternatives are feasible from both a water rights and water supply perspective. The State Division of Water Resources has issued a confusing letter of potential "Material Injury" on the basis that there is no guarantee that the State will issue well permits. The project is in the BWCD Area A and the state has never denied a well permit application submitted pursuant to an Area A water contract. It is our understanding that the BWCD and the Applicant are seeking clarification from the DWR on their review letter. The Applicant should resolve this issue prior to the Preliminary Plan Submittal. WASTEWATER Wastewater is proposed to be collected and treated at the Ranch at Roaring Fork central wastewater treatment facility. A "can and will serve" letter from the Ranch at Roaring Fork is included in the submittal. DRAINAGE The overall drainage plan for the AEE Subdivision was developed in the prior approval The proposed drainage pattern for the equestrian lot appears consistent with the overall drainage plan for the original project. The proposed pond provides water 1. a treatment for runoff from the proposed commercial village area. The drainage analysis indicates compliance with GARCO criteria and regulations. Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists 909 Colorado Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 • (970) 945-6777 • Fax (970) 945-1137 • • Mr. Fred Jarman March 2, 2006 Page 2 SOILS/GEOLOGY The project site is subject to the potential for development of sinkholes and poor surface soil conditions. As recommended in the HP Geotech report dated November 30, 2004, all building shall require site specific geotechnical analysis and foundation design. TRAFFIC/ROADS The traffic study prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. indicates that no improvements are required to County Road 100 or the existing and proposed intersections. However, it appears that the report proposes that County Road 100 would have a southbound acceleration lane for right turns out of the commercial village. a short deceleration lane for right turns into the commercial village, and two northbound lanes in the commercial village area to minimize stacking behind left turns into the village area. We believe these improvements should be incorporated into any approval and the design of the project for the preliminary plan submittal. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, RESOURCE ENGJ,NEERING, INC. Michael J. Er:n, .E. Water Resw'urce Engineer MJE/mmm 885-45.0 E:\Client\885\45.0\fjarman comp plan amend 885.doc RESOURCE ■UUU■ E N G I N E E R I N G INC • • MEMORANDUM To: Fred Jarman From: Steve Anthony Re: Comments on the Aspen Equestrian Estates subdivision Date: March 1, 2006 EXHIBIT Thanks for the opportunity to review the PUD amendment. My comments are as follows: Noxious Weeds The applicant needs to provide a noxious weed inventory, map, and weed management plan. There are infestations of the county listed noxious weed, plumeless thistle, in the area designated as "Open Space District". The weed management needs to contain a commitment to timely treatment of county listed noxious weeds. The applicant needs to assign responsibility for future weed management in common elements. Staff suggests that the applicant address weed management in the covenants for the Association and for individual lot owners. Revegetation The applicant has not provided a revegetation plan that includes a plant materials list for review. Please quantify the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. This information will help determine the amount of security that will held for revegetation. Staff recommends a revegetation security once this information is provided. Soil Plan It is requested that the applicant provide a Soil Management Plan that includes: Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil. A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles. A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more. Mosquito Management Plan Please provide a mosquito management plan for the proposed pond. P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 /N!'\ • Z4NC4NELL4 4(400 4550CI4TES, INC. 1 ..LI ENGINEERING CONSULT4NTS 'EIVED MAR 2 1 2006 GAR,F iiELD COUNTY JUILDING & PLANNING Mr. Fred Jarman Garfield County Planning 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 March 20, 2006 Re: Aspen Equestrian Estates and Preshana Farm PUD Amendment Dear Fred: EXHIBIT IL In follow up to Craig Lis' letter of February 22, 2006, the new uses for the commercial development are to be served from the Pinto Well and/or the Bay Well. These two wells would either be used in an independent system or in the existing Aspen Equestrian Estates (AEE) community water supply system (PWSID #000123152). Mr. Lis reviewed the well pumping data and determined that the wells would be adequate to serve the proposed PUD uses in the stand alone system. We operate the AEE community water system, so in order to obtain an independent review, Colorado River Engineers was retained to review the proposed combined new system. Their report was submitted as part of the PUD review package. I have attached the report for your convenience. Colorado River Engineers concluded that the wells would be adequate to serve the proposed new uses using the existing AEE community water system. The existing Pinto Well has been permitted for use in the AEE system. Additional or supplemental well permits will be necessary by final plat on all three of the existing wells (Pinto, Arabian, and Appaloosa wells) if a joint system is used or new permits on the Pinto and Bay Wells if the stand along system is utilized. We have also contacted Eric Mangeot, the engineer for the Basalt District. Eric indicated that the Basalt District has an approved TSSP in place and they are moving the Basalt contracts through the Division 5 Water Court in a timely manner. This has been customary procedure followed for AEE and Blue Creek Ranch and has been successfully implemented by final plat for the previous two PUDs. We anticipate applying for and obtaining well permits by final plat for the selected option, either stand alone or combined. • • If you have any questions, please call our office at (970) 945-5700. Very truly yours, Zancanella & Associates, Inc. Thomas A. Zancanella, P.E. Attachment cc: Ron Liston Jay Weinberg Lee Leavenworth z:\97000's\97420 aspen equestrian estates\97420.1 aee commercial center\garfield county-seo Itr.doc COLORADO vftl'�` RtvEti V ENCsINEERING, INC. P.O. Box 1301 Rifle, CO 81650 Tel 970-625-4933 Fax 970-625-4564 April 29, 2005 Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC c/o Mr. Gavin Brook 3220 County Road 100 Carbondale, CO 81623 RE: Job #644 Aspen Equestrian Estates & Blue Creek Ranch Water Association Water Demand Review Mr. Brook: As requested, Colorado River Engineering, Inc. has completed an evaluation of the estimated water demands for the Water Association (Association) serving Blue Creek Ranch (BCR) and Aspen Equestrian Estates (AEE). We reviewed the following reports, letters, and worksheets in our evaluation of the estimated water demands for both the BCR and AEE properties: Zancanella & Associates, Inc. Sopris Engineering, LLC Zancanella & Associates, Inc. Zancanella & Associates, Inc. September 16, 1999 September 28, 2000 January 24, 2002 April 7, 2005 (Z&A Report) (SE Letter) (Z&A Report) (Z&A Worksheet) The water demand assumptions contained in the various reports and letters reviewed appear to be consistent with typical demands used for water resources planning. The water demand assumption worksheets that we reviewed are attached as .Appendix A. We have prepared the attached Table 1 to summarize the water demands. We totaled the water demands for BCR, as shown in the January 24, 2002 - Z&A Report, with the water demands for AEE, as shown in the April 7, 2005 - Z & A Worksheet. The estimated combined water diversion demand for BCR & AEE is calculated to equal 102.25 -(acre-feet) with an associated combined consumptive use of 32.3 5 -(acre-feet). The peak demand is expected to occur during the month of June with a peak flow requirement of 99-gpm. The estimated combined water demand diversion for BCR & AEE as shown in the January 24, 2002 Z&A Report was 70.87-af with an associated consumptive use of 21.72-af. The peak demand was expected to occur in June with a peak flow requirement of 70.0-gpm. The April 7, 2005 Z&A Worksheet increased the estimated diversiondemand for AEE by 31.38-af with an increase in the associated consumptive use of 10.63-af The peak flow requirement was increased by 29- gpm. The increase in the water demand for AEE is attributable to both residential and commercial development. We have not completed a detailed review of the AEE development plans with respect to the new residential lots and commercial properties. The Association should be aware that the new developments, particularly the commercial properties, could increase the need for additional storage volume. The Fire District will likely identify the amount of fire storage required. The January 24, 2002 Z&A Report stated that both the Appaloosa and Arabian wells were tested to produce in excess of 100-gpm and were permitted to pump at a maximum combined rate of 100-gpm. Well permit applications included with the report showed that production for each well would be limited to 50-gpm. A single well pumping at a rate of 100-gpm would be expected to meet the peak water diversion demands for BCR & AEE. With two 100-gpm wells available, there should be enough pumping capacity from either well to meet the diversion demands for the system in the even of a failure of one of the wells. At a well pumping rate of 50-gpm the continuous production of two wells would be required to meet the peak water diversion demands. Should one of the wells fail to operate, the implementation of water use restrictions or the activation of an alternate backup well would be required to meet the peak diversion demands for the system. Based on the level of projected demands, we would recommend that the Association develop an additional well to serve as a backup supply. The estimated water demands are for the assumptions identified in the various reports and worksheets. Changes to the specified irrigated acreages and pond sizes would affect the water demands for the BCR & AEE properties. Lawn and pond sizes should be monitored to verify that they remain within the assumptions. The estimated water demands assume that the ponds and water delivery system are not subject to seepage and leaks. The increased water demands required to overcome system losses causes by increased irrigation, pond emptying and refilling, pond seepage, and system leaks, could exceed the assumption and therefore exceed the water demand estimates. This review was completed for the purpose of comparing estimated water supply requirements. The Association could explore recent water usage with respect to current build -out to determine if the actual water demands closely follow the estimated water supply requirements. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call 970-625-4933. Encl: car nn EQRSumnaszy.doe Sincerely, Christopher Maner'as P.E. 1 Table 1 - Blue Creek Water Association Oper. Storage Comments GAL >y M O (a E m ^c3 E o -O m 0 m L1 1E to ,-- >7 c C C 2 p Cm en m w -0 co y, r = p Gil g- t al E .N U M O E _�` -8 O co N 0 O m (9 X ag C 0 t CT .S U N O N & From Z&A•Aprl7, 2005, livestock units not specified From Z8A-Jan 24, 2002 (Live tock values estimated for AEE o o o o O 7 S' 0 N N p 0 .r N }}# E O0. W LL 0 2 N O M N W M In N N 61 <O N r LO Y E b 0 0. G. 0 IO .0 1 WIn N O ID en � P! m `--7i 4f I Q pr p 0) `- 4- 10 c^01q M O W P7 01 01 C C Q C O U CI Oi r of its N N r NI T e` Ol I W 0' N r r` '1 t7 I) C 3i ud 7 0 Ei M AWS M fr AAr f0 • /N t0 * CO C (2 d 4 CD O o O CD m O — O Cr, —r OI N At j J c'1 M O N4. pp IK N kr, 0 2 W t0IO fp �N 6 ea T M r CD 9 o r IDI. 4% Io a f W W Cf ,TF N E b N b cv E5 Q W coNON m �c.ir 14 61 O OO �tioi ivp6 h W Vf IA o- u'1 0^ 1- 61 m h ois- 05 O co o c" 7 KO W ai !JI N o N ci C V CI (y SE W P f9 In In 0) ® l to 01 m f W {Lu� Q W 2' Q c0 Z 0 -0 w <t,7Fill R ce - cn 10 Q w K Qm-6 g do OC Z&A - Sept 16, 1999 SE - Sept 28, 2000 IV S N n N N O N• ti Q� 2005 Summary Z&A- Apr 7,2005 Z8A - Jan 24t UO22 CRE - Calculated • 1 HVL V EOR Summary -,Js Colorado River Engineeri LULU, I`..l V • LI 1t4. f 1-1,1S_ V J • • Appendix A - Water Supply Worksheets Tabl41 %5pn Fay) c20lo0 Water Demand and Consumptive Use Summary (Proposed PUD) �,,7,tn o,w�,w�!-"„::.bhM1 rr..I,.Siiir.88,.lt`A1HY4Y"iCuyi.,. .,Yk 4-ii%tii;1.n" Number of 5Q1gt6's RaafGaneesArea Nu89.5 421/44)ca m0ar efEeR0 iP.egursrrtan A)atrhet 1'43Ul- kl,5 Agal.- 122 ECRS i Nu7rsbo'OfEQRtinCo.mm4r7.^.JAr..7 )3.0,(Qrt Toted Number e.f.eORt I19.65 evre !V o��^fptraan sErrartdBJn�ce' NA b''ar/pernen/.yr Percent CC0nm44 Lawn Amer Qpplfeazjon krrreidnry ;Fond Arca Annual Lawn Crary Iniy-m)On Faqu)remcnt Peta &Water -Lawn AredjtSra)) 4 c,:ila 41 a 3.5 a7/EQR: X00.o gr-) 535 2.5C0 4-11/3945-11 20'°6 0 399p 6.9 Dov (5) rtt {J i� IliJ' 1/14!1,18 46.91 17.11 3.98 3.60 3.93 9.36 3.98 3.86 3.98 3.98 3.86 3.98 3.86 398 0.00 0.P 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.21 0.53 0,94 324 0.45 410 0,54 3.89 0.56 2.53 0.51 2,14 0.39 0.68 0.26 0.00 0,15 0.00 0.11 3.75 32) 4.10 29.90 3.73 3054 4.19 30.39 4,73 35.66 7.68 56,03 8.50 60.11 8.44 61.58 7.02 51.23 6.37 48.05 4.93 3197 4,01 30.21 4.10 29.90 020 0.00 0.11 0.18 0.00 0.13 0.20 0.00 0.21 0.19 0.53 034 0.20 159 0.45 0.19 3.28 0.54 0.20 3.11 0.56 0.20 102 0.31 0.19 1.71 030 0.20 0.54 0.25 0.19 0.00 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.41 0.04 9.24 4.02 3.87 173 2.26 1.0). 0.34 0.31 000 57.77 2.35 19.69 3,75 0.00 19.79 (1) 04Wa Na. atama,>od.! Salon. 640 No. af£aom /AIR 6una4300. Oa8caNPatoa11,70,4,*lwbn• aP4r•>n)44 . (7.) 94.14 9,14)Vatm-- Comoorchol le6ml(o.1190. 1.(34dm2ydIvid<db'A,rli QA B2W+xy. (3) 84uA Rnn.P.. yao .3(4.. c dna And .tew (a} 040t1a 0s corn atCblzcm. (1s3). (3) 57141 Colutra.(a) RnM.321541 divided by Kw 14Mfauna51 Taxon (6) 84a.1e;.dPmm (1)mor.Yoecee CO 34914 (1)14.1.02115510.) rimt11418nlanv..Iw0.n.) (0) kW* C14em00 (4) 4v3. 6emau :f0olRwt (6 Amo 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 305 0.36 0.49 0.44 1)59 0.24 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.13 021 0.34 0.44 0.54 0.56 0.51 0.39 0.26 0.15 0.11 7r[ 4/7,23a5 VW/003'074M Asw?>'luo535..05,5rtbM66W✓rrTEW. Reekid Blue Creek Ranch Estimated Water Requirements • PCL > 15) 41( t, 3 • 0 Q f -- I.— 0 .t. 1') V' 01 CY do 6 oti ei ,4; cr? ,r) •••• GO Op CD N - C...4 C13 N. 05 71. cr:! el CO Di 0 0 6 6 -t-1 csi cS 6 tn 0) 0) a C 0 3 ' A q 0 Ca o 6 6 o ci 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 c; 6 c5 6 6 0 6 45 45 45 45 . o 6 qo 6 r) g3 0 rIt 8 8 en 0 0 a— .4- ci c5 e; 1.4 e5 ei 6 ei 6 in o 8 8 E 8 8 g 8 8 8 8 8 3 ci ci 6 6 0 2 10 CI Z.; Gc) ar C.) V- 2 00 6 o6 6 0 o 6 0 0 el C) (0 'cr (0 C. 0 € CD 0 Cl r5 4 (00) '1-•'? 05 4 r•.: 4 en (‚4(.) 'r17 Di DJ v... CD N Di al: c•'; C°) CO (0 (0 (0 a) co 6 co 6 6 gg gn g O 0 6 6 6 , 6 6 6 O 0 6 6 r) ay. N- 0 2 In 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 o esi g 8 C4 CS g3 g g 8 8 g CO N. CO N. CD N- q> co (0 okoo0c5000.opoco d 6 6 O 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 1.12 cr) Lr) •-• 2 53. (0 (0 2. T. 8 — tg 0 (0. S '7e- -5. 0 1.; .. 1-•0) CO iO zio -IA .41 • s E g E • cl) E 0: cr (4) en N. ry 0 0 EQR bluecreek4.123 • <- T C? `Z r r M • �- .= CV r r 6 ib to co cD N -7 r, lf) Iq L ti (") SD w N 0 V ▪ O O O O O O • .2-11 47 7 m O 4 o o 0 m O C') o in p t.. 0 fR B 0 1 gln�o ;Ern fy - o w • • 410 Q tw:: ` -M ou C o v ig n t O • c • R E lba 'C a E • 2 Q. Y; 7 iC MY ' 0 6 E= R ro G 3w 8_ a 6 d C 0 0 0 Z C 0 0 0 5 o O O C O O O o O O O O c 0 3 8 o 0 0 S o 0 0 o S O O O p O 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 8882 S I; 2 0 6 6666 <- 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O p O 0 0 0 p 060000000000 rnw mrn CDO) rn 00 CD 0) oo�o)0) O O O C 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N CD )D Q p 0 0 CD (D cc; N P 4 1'� r. ra 0i cc; (0 01 0) N N a) 4. 03 O K) OD 41 ' N N O) !• <7 N CD )D I•- V CD P N P N , 4 M a0 N N N a g0 h D) M r .-• 0) ccb){) yy� c0cy�)� yy 0)) 0 0 a O O O O O O Q 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 888888888888 666666 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o0o)047�VI e00 0 0 0 0 M N N P r 0 0 0 P 66666,6666666 N 1;3711. - cn r. r. r r � ti CP O) Qf ? CJ1 (fl D) � ..-- S.F- 1;10.4 74 c • 2 ''' a, p i x o 1 1 Cr- 4 da ` C Z e = JD -A rC O rim; 1n b 0 w w C0Q. coCr teg P, r N M1 r awggiftE gie• r in illhi1i leis!&. -+Q 0 a IL' re a -a1 m Z E --E 0 °m F W E E O .ILI o I s 1,7,-2()- ug.E.5im O Q m O a[ 4 R it 1 M/ ter O as 0 R 2. • O) 1 to g'a` pai N w. 1n N N n ti ai m ri — � 10 N V` 1n 8 2,1'; N O aN 1L7 N O9 O 6 D P '666 o) 0 v v r v e Q c v 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 P a d 0 0 0 0 o d6o do cid000ci 888868E08E8S 0 6 6 6 6 O O 6 6 0 0 0 0 888 N N O N v {il 6 6 6 6 - - - v D O g — 066d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 6 6 0 O O 8 8 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 N U Y IL d I— Lf? J w O c u 0 E2 e- aRti E 0 0 7;▪ ge E .c SI 0 n r) n m - m 0 40 a a r) r) /D mm n a, V f N^ !U ED M I,PO N P N a N N it! -- S fD t2 N Ne.; M N a R 4 r1 r) N N [v 10 0800 0000000 'q). -6666 0 0 0 17 C O 0 0 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 66,5666600666 888X24.) :3) v88 66ci r44 00c 0) N— N N N N N N N N N O II O O O C d O O C G G m0wV10VMW 9- p_0 - rnii,�immm� 4 N O ,. v i17Ad;44gIii>>v i ti 4 n) 02R 4 • • Fred Jarman From: Mark Kadnuck[makadnuc@smtpgate.dphe.state.co.us] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 5:15 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: Aspen Equestrian Estates/Preshana Farms Comment EXHIBIT I A4 If this new development chooses to construct their own public water system (second scenario of Zancanella report) then the state plans approval process for a public water system must be followed. Mark A. Kadnuck, P.E. CDPHE-WQCD 222 S. 6th Street, Rm 232 Grand Junction, CO 81501 ph: 970-248-7144 fax: 970-248-7198 email: mark.kadnuck@state.co.us 1 • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (970) 328-8730 FAX: (970) 328-7185 Email: comdev@eaglecounty.us www.eaglecounty.us 28 February 2006 EAGLE COUNTY Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 • RE: Aspen Equestrian Estates Subdivision & The Preshana Farms PUD Eagle County File No. IAR-00171 Greetings: EXHIBIT We have received your referral for Aspen Equestrian Estates Subdivision and The Preshana Farms PUD. We understand that the proposal would allow the development of a neighborhood type commercial area consisting of 20,000 square feet of floor area on 5 lots, plus four additional single-family residential lots, near the intersection of County Road 100 and Highway 82. The site is adjacent to the Catherine Store approximately mid -way between Carbondale and El Jebel. The particular site is a portion of the Equestrian Lot as depicted on the Final Plat of the Aspen Equestrian Estates Subdivision PUD, which is currently approved with 48 residential lots. Wastewater will be discharged to an existing central treatment facility for which taps have already been acquired, and domestic water will be provided by a new on-site central system or connected to an existing central water system. We have reviewed this application with the County's Development Review Team, which is comprised of staff planners, engineers and others. We thank you for the opportunity to comment and would merely encourage you to carefully consider potential traffic impacts and the type and amount of commercial development that is appropriate in this location. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this land use application. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 328.8752. Sincerel Joseph Forinash, AICP Planner Copy: Bob Narracci, Planning Division Manager Keith Montag, Director of Community Development Chrono/File F:\PLANNING\InterAgencyReview\I A R 00171 AspenEquestrianEstates\LtrResponse.doc Eagle County Building, 500 Broadway, PO. Box 179, Eagle, Colorado 81631-0179 RECEIVED MAR 0 2006 GGA �& LPCOUNT INNING ECOVED MAR 0 1 2006 GAR Ii W CUU NCY BUILDING & FLANING February 24, 2006 o [ a0 �l FIRE • EMS • RESCUE Fred Jarman Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Preshana Farm PUD Dear Fred: • EXHIBIT O I have reviewed the application for the proposed Preshana Farm PUD. The application was reviewed for compliance with the International Fire Code (IFC) 2003 edition, adopted by the County. I would offer the following comments. Access The proposed access for the PUD appears to be adequate for emergency apparatus. Water Supplies for Fire Protection Either of the two proposed water supplies for the development would be adequate. The proposed location and spacing of the fire hydrants are acceptable as well. Impact Fees The development is subject to development impact fees adopted by the District for the commercial units. The developer will be required to enter into an agreement with the District for the payment of development impact fees. Execution of the agreement and payment of the fees are due prior to the recording of the final plat. Fees are based upon the impact fees adopted by the District at the time the agreement is executed. Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance. Sincerely, (5,,ft Bill Gavette Deputy Chief Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970/963-2491 Fax 963-0569 4 • .� .�{ —mss y NOV 1 4 2.005 Garfield Commissioners Garfield Planning Department Garfield Planning and Zoning Board November 9, 2005 • /'r%Ck. EXHIBIT This request for a zoning change and commercial development at Catherine's store is opposed by everyone that I know that lives in the area. I personally live in Blue Creek Ranch and I moved there because of the semi --rural, residential aspect of that section of the valley. Catherine's Store serves our local needs just fine and we can Ty whatever else we need in Glenwood, Carbondale, El Jebel or Aspen. If the developer of Aspen Equestrian Estates wants to do some commercial development let him locate it in the above population centers. Please don't let him desecrate our pleasant little neighborhood with this garbage. Aspen Equestion Estates which you folks approved is the laughing stock of the valley --it's the most ugly and inappropriate subdivision from Aspen to Glenwood. It's only beauty and saving graces are the corrals and barns which serve to shield much of the disaster. Please don't compound your mistakes. Sincerely, Paul Andersen --General Contractor --35 years in the valley. cD y• Pi iDR C�•a . p K. co Xw0"g•0 co 13 0,o " C.4 v 0-0 oNbE.CDa.61a.5"oCa.a'�pbOc7NFN�Op 'yrt,a. po CD > or ° cRD p O, Cs' •" v° cjg, Doc -4 'b o 10 w ,--4, � 0 E3 vo 'b. p w ,-. P P: Eel', 7 o. ¢ ° co N ''� p `�' r 5. ro -d °w cD Cosa s� 'o 10 0 5.?: Z. ad "w R O 9C10 "wC Do `cD o CI u) p .- n co G b C 18 .1 b v`C r. w n `Im N a, °�.UQw°pn V , O rtryCD 8 fAm5'O . A ' cD p p 0 1:05 cw•Cp. DG w ca.- vt- 0 0. gt. a. s ri dam. P w Q'', °,va p a Ti. O N p R cPo , � c,, o C Oan a0"b . d R Q V a• + CD (D + Cy y O r D c• a m< �CD o m• 3 m' CD '0 Coo 0 5 o O• 13) Uf -o 0- ✓ 3 8.5 R 3o 5,n0 m - 11 a n O c 0 O O hS CD N h N a N a a O 0 (n N O r - Cf 5 CD E 0-4 1 m cY, v4 m� 3 rl F..R a< OCro CD i w g 9w O rd~G r go Np Q 'P cC O'q cab R �• Nt1IJ E' • 'da^ ~ O > o- P. "p' N N Oo o „,O O `< CD eps, P.., z • m D CO O iro cri• • '11 • 6 MN 3 c� rA 3 • N.1111rM togW • 1111. 411 fmla °s • p�io gi.6 R- w Gro o cdw y� Y �a0 � 'b '�° . t_ w 8 e,.wap,.yy2,.0a0cRbpo"?0GG..'aw0cotr =ccoc0"0 a°0cCD0`.<p b a na �NcO ao G-cD 'cp 'C5 b p () .oCD o.d p a� a QpN - b 'Oq O( 'a n 0. b.. G1 5p •Op.8 O.ao G a 0 `Cp til CV 00N�0 O Noza oa c~yVw NN P '* .* w yR~w C a N..° O G r" O A w cD a' cmay M g• co"''w 0I.; -'N p,G.hcoco C"w �OD wo ...WE„ _ IQ rn 6. cp • , a w R tgO O y M°.+y ° p0b o 5 n pN a "C rrw v�y , Oc~o°NpG' a at't7 ob. pipp° O p a •-• Q G "' Oti w aw a' n ,-tilcI-' o° th 7ciaz .o v ta 7 av0a.aa'V p, P 0 �,i"' ° N5'n G a`C • O-� F4 a:<Opa �, .yr. �• ON p N ''G.a. N G..)l c. wwb : cT , l'. .) ^.--t•,.. ppn y o c A)o O rii 240 N — p—a'cro t,. 0 C Cr x 0 Q. () O w 5* ° N b, o oo "*' w 0O co G tn c=nI•$,0 Q'~+-hN ppp G t~na• I-1 a ncr. a CD A.ti M v G a o p•co Cr 0, 0``: V0'°a° Q5-• : g.�.a oA' m P 6 c� w ro y N cao �. G w p p p �� .0 p' .'y p a' � �° wo� ybaa°Q,vrr°c° •,aoa0.,o co w.„.—:CD+ 4° o a g EEE 4 c °,,.o O Q cr R w O• ti a G v, ,,,4 — a b aC c. a i? . co ; r. N w a p. `C q a .v° n O a O w 0 �O w `. Abp, m �w p,`"tT �"n y p, w zp v 0 A A. pw . w '4O :. 0 .4 p,.' Q p' R O A `� y b G:� 0 0 a y ;•p 8 5 -1 �0 ., 5 w 0 w p, „ x , N �• n' c=i to b a il):3,1 5 G P 0 5' E" 'w. pq '8 LA p G'.p �.� a ao p a a �'v n a Z., • OaQ co, ::- 0 v' CDD 3 CO Q. w. v. Fn' ccDD b n 2 ,•C O ill N 1 • Fred Jarman From: Fred Jarman Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:54 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Preshana Farms PUD and Comp Plan Amendment From: Dave Michaelson[mailto:Dave.Michaelson@co.maui.hi.us] Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 3:37 PM To: fjarman@garfield-county.com Cc: Mark Bean Subject: Preshana Farms PUD and Comp Plan Amendment Aloha Fred! EXHIBIT I CP)? I am currently a Senior Long Range Planner for Maui County, Hawaii with over ten years of experience as a professional planner in the Roaring Fork Valley. I am writing in reponse to the recently submitted Preshana Farm PUD and Comprehensive Plan amendments to rezone open space for commercial uses. I was the staff person responsible for drafting the first Garfield County Comprehensive Plan for Area 1 - Roaring Fork Valley. I can assure you that at the time (1991 - 1995) after considerable community dialogue and review of available commercial land in the area from El Jebel to Carbondale, that there was no support for commercial expansion in the area of Catherine Store. This was in fact manifested in the land use map that accompanied the approved document. We had substantative discussion regarding areas for commercial expansion in the Roaring Fork Valley, and at no time was expansion ever envisioned for this area. Trying to argue that additional traffic would warrant such an amendment has no basis in fact, competent planning or in the best interest of Garfield County. A Hui Ho! Dave Michaelson Long Range Planner Maui County Planning Department PH: 808.270.7841 email: dave.michaelson@co.maui.hi.us 1 • • Fred Jarman From: Roussin, Daniel[Daniel.Roussin@DOT.STATE.CO.US] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 5:33 PM To: Fred Jarman Cc: Drayton, Devin Subject: RE: AAE EXHIBIT Thank you for the opportunity to review Aspen Equestrian Estates on Grand County Road 100 (Catherine Store). Taking a preliminary review of the "Aspen Equestrian Estates" traffic study (TIS) dated August 8, 2005. The study indicates that the development will not increase traffic by 20% percent. I agree with TIS that the development will not increase by 20 percent therefore no access permit would be required for SH 82 and CR 100. 1 do see the site plan showing realignment SH 82 Frontage road to align with development access point on CR 100. Conceptually, I agree with the concept, however, an access permit would be required. I don't know if we have the right of way. 5 years ago, I know Blue Ridge development wanted to dedicate the ROW. I don't know if that did happen. There needs to be coordination with CDOT to make this happen In the TIS, I didn't see any information of queue lengths (backage from signal). There might be some concern with vehicles blocking the Catherine Store driveway. I would suggest that this development provide an easement for Catherine Store to use their access (backage road). Catherine Store access will become an issue in the future when traffic volumes increase on CR100 If you have any questions, please let me know. Dan Roussin R3 CDOT Traffic From: Fred Jarman [mailto:fredjarman@garfield-county.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 3:05 PM To: Roussin, Daniel Subject: AAE Dan, In effect, the Applicant proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan to a land use designation that supports their rezone proposal to convert a large portion of the existing horse paddocks and stables to five commercial lots providing a total of 20,000 sq. ft. commercial space in the "Commercial Neighborhood" District which would include the following uses: ➢ Proposed Uses -by -Right o Personal Service Establishments including bank (with or without drive up facility), barber and beauty shop, copy and reproduction shop, secretarial and business services, travel agency, real estate sales office, mailbox services and shipping supplies and services, electronics repair, message therapy, tanning and manicure shop, tailor shop, shoe repair, indoor entertainment, consignment shop, dry cleaning serving individuals only, and insurance agency; o Fitness gym with exercise equipment and rooms for exercise classes, dance studio; o Small animal veterinary clinic with in-patient holding facilities contained entirely indoors 3/29/2006 1 Page 2 of 2 with facilities for odor and sound control; o Delicatessen, cafe, juice bar, coffee shop, restaurant with or without alcoholic beverage service provided that no such individual business shall exceed 4,000 sq. ft. of gross internal floor area, Outdoor food and beverage service facilities with a seating capacity greater than 36 seats shall be allowed only on the easterly one-half of the district, drive-thru food or beverage service facilities are prohibited; o Retail sales of clothes and footware, gifts, crafts and art products, curios, book and magazine, antiques, photographic supplies, flowers and live plants, tack and equestrian supplies, pets and pet supplies, ranch supplies and pre-packaged livestock feeds, fishing tackle and sports equipment, supplies and accessories provided that no such individual business shall exceed 4,000 sq. ft. of gross internal floor area, provided that retail sales display area shall not exceed 1,400 sq. ft. of sq. ft. in any one business; o Business, Professional, and medical offices; o Parks and open Space 3/29/2006 OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3589 www.water.state.co.us • STATE OF.COLO March 24, 2006 Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th St Ste 401 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RCEIV • MAR 3 0 2006 GARFIEL J : )U TY BUILDING & PLANNING EXHIBIT Bill Owens Governor Russell George Executive Director Hal D. Simpson, P.E. State Engineer Re: Aspen Equestrian Estates and The Preshana Farms PUD PUD Amendment Section 31, T7S, R87W, 6th PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 Dear Fred: We have reviewed additional information regarding the above -referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 15.2 acres into 13 Tots, including five single-family residential Tots, 20,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, and 5.23 acres of open space. The domestic water supply is to be provided through either a new central system or connection to the existing Aspen Equestrian Estates/Blue Creek Water Association (AEE/BC) system. The proposed development is estimated to require a total of 30.15 EQRs, with 12.2. EQRs required for residential use (1.8 EQRs per residence), and 18.0 EQRs required for commercial use. Total diversions are estimated to be 19.88 AF annually and the consumptive use is estimated to be 7.79 AF annually. Irrigation water is to be provided by a raw water system using irrigation water rights, but no information was provided regarding these rights. Sewage disposal is to be provided through connection to the Ranch at Roaring Fork (Ranch) wastewater treatment facility. A letter of commitment from the Ranch was included with the submittal. The additional information addresses the second alternative to connect to the existing AEE/BC Water System. Under this alternative the Pinto Well would be connected to the existing AEE/BC system, which is currently supplied by the Appaloosa and Arabian Wells. An April 29, 2005 report by Colorado River Engineering, Inc. estimates the combined diversion amount for the joint system to be 102.25 AF/yr. The combined consumptive use for the joint system would be approximately 32.35 AF/yr., and the combined peak flow rate required for the joint system would be 99.0 gpm. The joint system would be supplied by three existing wells. Permit No. 53232-F was issued for the Pinto Well and allows use for ordinary household purposes inside 47 single-family dwellings and three employee dwellings, the irrigation of not more than 3.4 acres of gardens and lawns, the watering of livestock, and commercial uses associated with an equestrian facility. The simultaneous maximum pumping rate of the Pinto Well and any other well operating under Basalt Water Conservancy District (District) Contract No. 343 shall not exceed 100 gpm. As noted in our previous letter of February 22, 2006, the production rate of this well is 75 gpm. Permit No. 53322-F was issued for the Appaloosa Well and allows use for ordinary household purposes inside 47 single-family dwellings and three employee dwellings, the irrigation of not more than 3.4 acres of gardens and lawns, the watering of livestock, and commercial uses • • Fred Jarman Page 2 Aspen Equestrian Estates March 24, 2006 associated with an equestrian facility. The simultaneous maximum pumping rate of the Appaloosa Well and any other well operating under District Contract No. 343 shall not exceed 100 gpm. Permit No. 57122-F was also issued for the Appaloosa Well and allows use for ordinary household purposes inside 50 single-family dwellings, for drinking and sanitary purposes inside two commercial businesses, the irrigation of not more than 130,000 sq. ft. of gardens and lawns, and the watering of 20 domestic animals. The simultaneous maximum pumping rate of the Appaloosa and any other well operating under District Contract No. 383 shall not exceed 100 gpm. The Pump Installation and Test Report submitted for this well indicates a production rate of 75 gpm. Permit No. 57121-F was issued for the Arabian Well and allows use for ordinary household purposes inside 50 single-family dwellings, for drinking and sanitary purposes inside two commercial businesses, the irrigation of not more than 130,000 sq. ft. of gardens and lawns, and the watering of 20 domestic animals. The simultaneous maximum pumping rate of the Arabian Well and any other well operating under District Contract No. 383 shall not exceed 100 gpm. Permit No. 58810-F was also issued for the Arabian Well and allows use for ordinary household purposes inside 47 single-family dwellings and three employee dwellings, the irrigation of not more than 3.4 acres of gardens and lawns, the watering of 30 head of livestock, and commercial uses associated with an equestrian facility including 0.3 acres of landscape irrigation. The simultaneous maximum pumping rate of the Arabian Well and any other well operating under District Contract No. 343 shall not exceed 100 gpm. The Well Construction and Test Report submitted for this well indicates a production rate of 100 gpm. If the wells continue to produce at these rates and with sufficient storage capacity, the water supply should be physically adequate. Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply under either alternative is physically adequate, however material injury will occur to decreed water rights unless the applicant obtains and maintains valid well permits for the existing and/or proposed wells pursuant to a court -approved plan for augmentation or pursuant to the District's temporary substitute supply plan. Also, the use of the irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and approval of a change of water right application by the water court may be necessary if the place of use is changed. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Cynthia Love at this office for assistance. Sincerely, L Craig M. Lis, E. Water Resource Engineer CML/CJL/Aspen Equestrian Estates ii.doc cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5 Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38 APR. 6.2006 7:42AM TO I OF CARBONDALE • NO.852 TOWN OF CAIUBONDALE 511 Colorado Avenue Carbondale, CO 81623 April 6, 2006 Fred Jarman Garfield County Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Aspen Equestrian Estates Subdivision and Preshana Farms PUD Dear Fred: EXHIBIT Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the application for the Aspen Equestrian Estates Subdivision and Preshana Farms PUD. Our understanding is this is a request for the following: 1. To amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use !District map to change a portion (3.31 acres) of the Preshana Farms PUD which is now designated "subdivision/residential" and contains a rural residential subdivision and equestrian farm to "General Commercial" to allow 20,000 sq. ft, of commercial space, 2. To amend the zoning in the Preshana Farms PUD from Open Space and Equestrian Center to allow 3.31 acres of the 152 acre parcel to be "Neighborhood Commercial Village District." 3. To seek approval of a Sketch Plan to subdivide the 15.2 acre property into 12 lots, five of which will be in a neighborhood commercial village. We have reviewed Garfield County's Comprehensive Plan and the Town of Carbondale Comprehensive Plan and Three Mile Plan. These planning documents, in combination, are intended to guide growth and development in the rural areas around Carbondale, including the Catherine Store/Preshana Farm area. (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140 APR. 6.2006 7:42AM T OF CARBONDALE ill 1 NO.852 P.3 It appears that the small commercial area on the County's Comprehensive Plan land use map was meant to reflect the existing convenience store (Catherine's Store). The area is small and it doesn't appear there was any intention in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial growth beyond the convenience store level of commercial that exists. There are very few commercial areas shown along the Hwy. 82 corridor. It appears the commercial areas which are shown were meant to acknowledge existing commercial uses. The proposed uses in the "Commercial Neighborhood Village" Planned Unit Development District include banks, travel agencies, retail sales of clothes and footwear, and business, professional and medical offices. These are more destination type of uses and are far beyond the neighborhood convenience store use which exists. Such extensions are only appropriate if it is the intent of the County to pursue a commercial support area capable of serving the needs of more than the surrounding neighborhood. It is likely that this amount of commercial development and the proposed use list will require a broader market. Town Staff does not feel these types of uses are compatible in the rural residential area envisioned in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. The Proposed Land Use Districts and Methodology Table in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan sets out considerations to determine appropriate land uses in the County. That table suggests that land use compatibility and proximity to other urban areas are "critical" considerations in making a determination to change the designation to "General Commercial" use. Town Staff feels that it is difficult to support the change to "General Commercial" because of the rural residential nature of the area and the distance from urban areas of Carbondale and El Jebel. It is not clear what happens if a "General Commercial" designation is established in this location. Will this justify additional commercial expansion or greater residential densities in the future, requiring further changes to the adopted Plans? The Carbondale Three Mile Land Use Plan supports the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan in that it shows a small General Commercial" area at the Katherine Store location. It does not reflect any expansion of a general commercial area. The area around Catherine Store is designated as residential land use. When the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan was developed, the citizens of Carbondale and Town Staff were involved with the process. We appreciate the opportunity to express our support for the land use policies already set forth in the adopted community plans and recommend that the land use at this location not be altered in any way that 1) is inconsistent with the designated uses and 2) will require a change to the adopted plans to allow a piecemeal change in a use without broader consideration of the entire area_ APR. 6.2006 7:42AM T OF CARBONDALE ill/ • Thank you and please let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, ,t7-.- 4-7 .� -0 Doug Dotson Community Development Director Janet Buck Assistant Planner cc: Carbondale Board of Trustees Carbondale Planning Commission NO.852 P.4 • RECEIVE" APR 1 0 2006 GARFIELD COUNTY 112 -0, ---Cr 1C0J.,-Q-IA K vtd-±- BUILDING & PLANNING nAKIO() QicJe , C6 8/6 Z3 + -7-a 6 1 O & S CQAA uu0Oci S ivy 5 b -Q4 -kr trecbv-- S�IT� IF°I Cc; y 4Q ( (V Y- �L.K Wt Cun EXHIBIT le se ac�115 (e_14e'ir as du r ciAJ (eA e- S 10c� � - e v'c o SEl s (' Pvrkr acki(A ceAAA ` J 11 /� Sys.. Iti sec_ c4 -42,0/ 32,g.A. 166, 1 Otct y z 4. (.6 e- cure, tt s, rolit c)f -�- t�k;r-k s V� (ct,vt /1116-(24,t_& ►' = c4 i, -) 4&Q— ‘16r0P6s .1 vj vtl(a.'ja , VeAr (/ ur,derSt • Fred A. Jarman Assistant Planning Director 108 8th Street, Ste. 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RECEIVED APR 11 2006 GAF ILLU COUNTY BUILDING & LANN NG Adam Sahnow 3114 Sopris Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re. Comp Plan Amendment / Preshana Farm PUD Amendment Neighborhood Commercial Village and Residential Lots Dear Mr. Jarman, EXHIBIT I am unable to attend the Planning Commision hearing regarding the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the PUD amendment to create a shopping complex at Catherine Store, but would like to support this proposal. I, as a commuter from down valley feel that the area offers a convenient location for more services than are currently available. With the increase in residential development around the area, I feel the proposed commercial/retail improvement would also offer an unavailable convinence to the residents in the area. Adam Sahnow • • Fred Jarman From: Ron Liston [rblist@quixnet.net] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 2:51 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Aspen Equestrian Estates FYI EXHIBIT 1 NAJ Original Message From: Glenveretto@aol.com [mailto:Glenveretto@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 2:32 PM To: rblist@quixnet.net Subject: Aspen Equestrian Estates Mr Ron Listin Regarding the pending Commercial Development in this subdivision, I strongly support and Commercial Development. I own 3 lots in the subdivision and I believe it would enhance this subdivision and the surrounding area. Thank You Glen Veretto 505 298-5555 4/11/2006 RECEIVED APR 1 0 2006 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Fred A. Jarman Assistant Planning Director 108 8th Street, Ste. 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re. Comp Plan Amendment / Preshana Farm PUD Amendment Neighborhood Commercial Village & Residential Lots Dear Mr. Jarman: EXHIBIT Antony& Amiee Cullick 7484 County Rd. 100 Carbondale,CO 81623 I am unable to attend the Planning Commission hearing regarding the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the PUD amendment to create a neighborhood shopping village adjacent to Catherine Store but would like to express my support for this proposal. Catharine Store has a long standing history of providing important commercial services to the Mid Valley community and with the growing population in this area, there will also be increased demand for retail and personal services beyond the capacity of the Catharine Store site. The most logical location for these additional commercial services is adjacent to Catharine Store. Many local area residents will be able to walk to the proposed shopping village and the location is convenient for the residents of a large area of Missouri Height which may help to reduce traffic on Hwy 82. Additionally, it appears that the proposed shopping village site plan has been thoughtfully prepared so as to encourage future improvement to the traffic patterns at the County Roadl00, Hwy 82 and Old Hwy 82 intersection. This proposal will be beneficial to County residents in both the short and long term and I am in full support of both the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the PUD Amendment. • RECEIVED APR 1 0 2006 GARFI LD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Fred A. Jarman Assistant Planning Director 108 8th Street, Ste. 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 James Harris 161 Floyd Street El Jebel, CO 81623 970/963-9501 Re. Comp Plan Amendment / Preshana Farm PUD Amendment Neighborhood Commercial Village & Residential Lots Dear Mr. Jarman: • EXHIBIT I will not attend the Planning Commission hearing regarding the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the PUD amendment to create a neighborhood shopping village adjacent to Catherine Store I want the decision makers to know about my support for this project. Catharine Store is about the only option we have in this part of the valley; there will soon be increased demand for retail and personal services beyond the capacity of the Catharine Store. A logical solution to the future demand would be to put additional commercial spaces adjacent to Catharine Store. Many local area residents will be able to walk or bike to the proposed shopping village and the location is convenient for the residents of a large area of Missouri Heights. We would really appreciate having something closer to our home, since we almost always have to travel all the way to Glenwood Springs for needed purchases and services. It appears to me that the proposed shopping village site plan has been thoughtfully prepared so as to encourage future improvement to the County Road 100, Hwy 82 and Old Hwy 82 intersection. I am in full support of both the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the PUD Amendment. and believe that this proposal will be beneficial to County residents in both the short term and for the long run. Sincerely, Ines Harris • April 7, 2006 Fred A. Jarman Assistant Planning Director 108 8th Street, Ste. 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 EC11'T E�: APR 1 0 2006 GAR IELD CUL; 1.4T' ( BUILDING & PI_Ar;idING Re. Comp Plan Amendment / Preshana Farm PUD Amendment Neighborhood Commercial Village & Residential Lots Dear Mr. Jarman: Eric Rewinkel 203 Deer Run Carbondale, CO 81623 EXHIBIT 1 E I am unable to attend the Planning Commission hearing regarding the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the PUD amendment to create a neighborhood shopping village adjacent to Catherine Store but would like to express my support for this proposal. Catharine Store has a long standing history of providing important commercial services to the Mid Valley community and with the growing population in this area, there will also be increased demand for retail and personal services beyond the capacity of the Catharine Store site. The most logical location for these additional commercial services is adjacent to Catharine Store. Many local area residents will be able to walk to the proposed shopping village and the location is convenient for the residents of a large area of Missouri Heights which may help to reduce traffic on Hwy 82. Additionally, it appears that the proposed shopping village site plan has been thoughtfully prepared so as to encourage future improvement to the traffic patterns at the County Road100, Hwy 82 and Old Hwy 82 intersection. This proposal will be beneficial to County residents in both the short and long term and I am in full support of both the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the PUD Amendment. Regards, Eric Rewinkel • RESOLUTION NO. 6 SERIES OF 2006 R CEIVED APR 1 2 2006 GARFIELC) COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF CARBONDALE, COLORADO, OPPOSING AMENDMENT OF THE PRESHANA FARM P.U.D. EXHIBIT WHEREAS Aspen Equestrian Estates, L.L.C. has applied to Garfield County to amend the Preshana Farm P.U.D. to allow a neighborhood type commercial village to be established upon the Equestrian Lot depicted on the Final Plat of the Aspen Equestrian Estates Subdivision; and WHEREAS the Garfield County Building & Planning Department referred this land use application to the Town of Carbondale's Community Development Department for comment; and WHEREAS, in a letter to the Garfield County Planning Department dated April 6, 2006, the Town's Community Development staff recommended that Garfield County deny the subject application, noting that: a. The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan does not contemplate commercial growth in this location beyond the existing commercial facilities that are presently located at the southeast intersection of County Road 100 and Highway 82, which facilities include a small convenience store, a gas station and a liquor store; b. The proposed expanded uses include banks, travel agencies, retail clothing sales, and medical offices, which uses are inconsistent with surrounding rural - residential land uses; c. The Town of Carbondale's Three Mile Land Plan does not contemplate expanded commercial uses in this location; d. Commercial uses in this area should not be expanded without a broader consideration of land uses within this area of the county. And, WHEREAS the Town of Carbondale's Board of Trustees shares these concerns of the Town's Community Development staff regarding the subject application and wishes to inform the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners of these concerns. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF CARBONDALE, COLORADO, that: 1. For the above reasons, the Town is opposed to the expansion of existing commercial uses at the intersection of County Road 100 and Highway 82. ❑ ri Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. April 12, 2006 Garfield County 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Review of Aspen Equestrian Estates Traffic Impact Study Response to Comments To Garfield County staff: Thank you for the comments provided for the Aspen Equestrian Estates Traffic Impact Study in the memorandum dated April 12, 2006. This letter provides a response to the comments in the memorandum regarding traffic. 1. CDOT commented that they did not see any information of queue lengths (backage from signal). There might be some concern with vehicles blocking the Catherine Store driveway. Staff agrees with CDOT's concern of long traffic queue lengths attempting to turn right into the commercial village which may back up and impact Catherine Store or even queue lengths attempting to turn off of SH82 onto CRI00. The HCS results indicate that the maximum northbound queue at the intersection of SH -82 with CR -100 based upon the 95th percentile exceedence probability is 16 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 23 vehicles during the PM peak hour in 2010 with the addition of project traffic. These HCS analysis results for both AM and PM peak hours evaluated are attached. Based on these results, during the PM peak hour the northbound queue at the intersection of SH -82 with CR -100 may be up to 575 feet (based upon a 25 foot vehicle length). Due to the location of both the existing and proposed Catherine Store driveway locations, the northbound queue at the SH -82 & CR -100 intersection would block both driveways to northbound vehicles wishing to access the Catherine Store. This distance appears from the site plan to be approximately 240 feet. However, this queue would be anticipated to dissipate within the estimated 100 second cycle length of the intersection and not create a significant impact to traffic operations along CR -100. In reference to southbound queues along CR -100 blocking the Catherine Store driveway, there are not anticipated to be any queues southbound along CR -100 since there is no stop control along CR -100 and southbound to westbound right turning vehicles entering the Catherine Store and the proposed project are anticipated to experience no delay entering the Catherine Store or the project site. ■ TEL 303 228 2300 FAX 303 446 8678 ■ Suite 1050 950 Seventeenth Street Denver, Colorado 80202 • • ❑ EN F1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Garfield County Staff, April 12, 2006, Page 2 2. The KHA study uses "specialty retail center" and "shopping center" as representative land uses (814 and 820) in the ITE Manual to be the closest to the proposed uses in the project. However, the PUD proposal also includes business, professional, and medical offices in its uses -by -right which appear to be excluded from the traffic land use calculations which can be referenced or classified as "medical -dental office building" (720). As a result, based on the proposed uses in the PUD, Staff finds the traffic analysis does not adequately characterize all of the proposed uses and their associated traffic generation. A trip generation comparison is provided below between the land use assumptions included within the original traffic impact study for the Aspen Equestrian Estates development and the current use assumptions that include a portion of the 20,000 square foot development to be developed as medical/dental office and general office. As summarized in the table, the original TIA assumptions are believed to be conservative since 20,000 square feet of Specialty Retail use is anticipated to generate more trips during the controlling aftemoon peak hour than the current use assumptions that include a mix of Specialty Retail, Medical Office, and General Office. The trip generation calculations for the current use assumptions are attached. Land Use Vehicle Tri s Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Original TIA Assumptions Specialty Retail (20,000 sq. ft.) 886 9 6 15 24 30 54 Current Use Assumptions Specialty Retail (16,000 sq. ft.) 620 6 4 10 17 21 38 Medical Office (4,000 sq. ft.) 72 4 1 5 2 5 7 Office (2,000 sq. ft.) 22 3 0 3 1 2 3 Total 714 13 5 18 20 28 48 Difference Between Original TIA and Current Use Assumptions -172 +4 -1 +3 -4 -2 -6 e • :::1 um ri Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Garfield County Staff, April 12, 2006, Page 3 In addition, it is understood that there is concern regarding providing easement through the proposed property for the Catherine Store to utilize the proposed project driveway. This proposed access scenario is not anticipated to impact traffic operations along CR -100. Decreasing the number of access locations along CR -100 between SH -82 and the proposed access driveway is anticipated to decrease the number of vehicle conflict points and may improve safety along CR -100. In addition, given that the existing Catherine Store driveway is located in close proximity to SH -82, the removal of this driveway is anticipated to provide an overall safety benefit to the roadway network. Please call me if you have any questions or require anything further based upon this analysis. Sincerely, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Curtis D. Rowe, P.E., PTOE Associate Attachments HCS200071v1 Copyright 2000 University of Flo ida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e BACK-OF-QUEUE WORKSHEET Geneeal'Inkirmatibh :. .„, : _ '-‘,-:-.,..:•:. .:.. .'t;'_:..-:,,,;. 4-;:: :. . . Project Description 067871004 - Aspen Equestrian AM Total 2010 Average Back of Queue x„:.::,,.:.,;,,--_;•...-., ., - '• ' , ! ).,,c,- . ,, ..;' , ,.•.-,: ,,,;;kf,:. - '':2..:-::,.:_, ' ,,-:- . EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Lane group L T R L T R LTR LTR Init. queue/lane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Flow rate/lane 26 1233 89 98 524 84 268 96 Satflow per lane 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 1605 1417 Capacity/lane 144 2135 953 144 2135 953 353 312 Flow ratio 0.01 0.34 0.06 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.17 0.07 v/c ratio 0.18 0.58 0.09 0.68 0.25 0.09 0.76 0.31 1 factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Qi 0.7 11.2 1.1 2.6 3.7 1.0 7.0 2.2 k 0.3 1.3 1.2 0.3 1.3 1.2 0.6 0.5 Q2 0.1 1.8 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.1 1.6 0.2 Q avg. 0.7 12.9 1.2 3.3 4.1 1.1 8.6 2.5 Per:Cilit ''T Oci( i:0: Mk 6f4W6ti le),,,;: ,r ' ' ..i.::',,' ..-- '--E-,•:,-.3-`2,!•:„'" fF3% 2.5 1.7 2.4 2.1 2.0 2.4 1.8 2.2 BOQ, Q% 1.8 21.7 2.9 6.9 8.4 2.7 15.3 5.5 _ ,u6-Stor?§:0-..,k tr .. 4.: - , - ! I • ,:l -, -, , • ,i, ".- - , - - "0 ;- ' • ' Q spacing 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Q storage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Avg. RQ 95% Ro% HCS200071v1 Copyright 2000 University of Flo ida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e BACK -OF -QUEUE WORKSHEET General Information �.: _ tib..;.. Project Description 067871004 - Aspen Equestrian PM Total 2010 Average tack o'f.Queue ;: EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Lane group L T R L T R LTR LTR Init. queue/lane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Flow rate/lane 31 631 66 381 1646 39 346 76 Satflow per lane 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 1523 1525 Capacity/lane 90 1339 598 505 2171 969 366 366 Flow ratio 0.02 0.17 0.04 0.21 0.45 0.02 0.23 0.05 v/c ratio 0.34 0.47 0.11 0.75 0.76 0.04 0.95 0.21 I factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q- 0.8 7.0 1.2 9.7 17.6 0.4 9.4 1.7 ke 0.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.3 1.2 0.6 0.6 Q2 0.1 0.8 0.1 2.1 3.8 0.1 4.0 0.2 Q avg. 1.0 7.9 1.3 11.7 21.4 0.5 13.5 1.8 Perce title dueue`(9 ,ti 'de nt le) < ,, ` fe% 2.4 1.8 2.4 1.7 1.6 2.5 1.7 2.3 BOQ, Q°i° 2.3 14.2 3.1 19.9 34.5 1.2 22.5 4.2 ' tI6 Storag j x� z Q spacing 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Q storage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Avg. RQ 95% RQ% HCs2000TM Copyright m 2000 University of Flo ida, All Rights Reserved Version 4. le Land Use Vehicle Tri s Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Original TIA Assumptions Specialty Retail (20,000 sq. ft.) 886 9 6 15 24 30 54 Current Use Assumptions Specialty Retail (16,000 sq. ft.) 620 6 4 10 17 21 38 Medical Office (4,000 sq. ft.) 72 4 1 5 2 5 7 Office (2,000 sq. f 22 3 0 3 1 2 3 Total 714 13 5 18 20 28 48 Difference Between Original TIA and Current Use -172 +4 -1 +3 -4 -2 -6 Project Aspen Equestrian Subject Trip Generation Designed by EAG Checked by Date April 11, 2006 Job No. Date Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trip Generation Manual 7th Edition, Average Rates Land Use Code - General Office Building (710) Independent Variable - 1000 Square Feet (X) X = 2.000 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Hour of Adiacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. (Page 1159) Directional Distribution: 88% ent. 12% exit. (T) = 1.55 (X) T = 3 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 1.55 * (2.0) 3 entering 0 exiting 3 + 0 = 3 Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. (page 1160) Directional Distribution: 17% ent. 83% exit. (T) = 1.49 (X) T = 3 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 1.49 * (2.0) 1 entering 2 exiting 1 + 2 = 3 Weekday (page 1158) Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 50% ent. 50% exit. (T) = 11.01 (X) T = 22 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 11.01 * (2.0) 11 entering 11 exiting 11 + 11 = 22 G:\-tpto\067871004 - Aspen Equestrian\f710 OFFCBLDG.XLS]Ave Rate l• KImley-Hom M and Associates, Inc. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Project Aspen Equestrian Subject Trip Generation Designed by EAG Checked by Date Date April 11, 2006 Job No. Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trip Generation Manual 7th Edition - Average Rate Equations Land Use Code - Medical/Dental Office Building (720) Independant Variable - 1000 Square Feet (X) X = 2.000 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. (Page 1191) Directional Distribution: 79% ent. 21% exit. (T) = 2.48 (X) T = 5 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 2.48 * (2.0) 4 entering 1 exiting 4 + 1 = 5 Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. (page 1192) Directional Distribution: 27% ent. 73% exit. (T) = 3.72 (X) T = 7 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 3.72 * (2.0) 2 entering 5 exiting Weekday (page 1158) Daily Weekday (T) = 36.13 (X) (T) = 36.13 * 2 + 5 = 7 Directional Distribution: 50% ent. 50% exit. T = 72 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (2.0) 36 entering 36 exiting 36 + 36 = 72 G:\-tpto\067871004 - Aspen Equestrian\[MEDOFF.xIs]Sheet2 Project Aspen Equestrian Subject Trip Generation Designed by EAG Checked by Date December 10, 2004 Job No. 067871004 Date Sheet No. 2 of 2 TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trip Generation Manual7th Edition, Average Rate Equations Land Use Code - Specialty Retail Center (814) Independant Variable - 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area (X) X = 14.000 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. *rates are not provided for AM peak hour for this land use, so rate was developed by comparison of AM rate to PM rate for shopping center and this proportion (AM peak hour rate/PM peak hour rate) was applied to the specialty retail land use (directional distribution for AM peak hour from shoppping center was used) AM Rate for ITE 820 _ AM Rate for ITE 814 therefore PM Rate for ITE 820 PM Rate for ITE 814 3.75 2.71 1.03 = AM Rate for ITE 815 AM Rate for ITE = (1.03*2.71)/3.75 = 0.74 (T) = 0.74 (X) (T) = 0.74 * Directional Distribution: 61% ent. 39% exit. T = 10 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (14.0) 6 entering 4 exiting 6 + 4 = 10 Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. (page 1339) (T) = 2.71 (X) (T) = 2.71 * Directional Distribution: 44% ent. 56% exit. T = 38 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (14.0) 17 entering 21 exiting Weekday (page 1338) Daily Weekday (T) = 44.32 (X) (T) = 44.32 * 17 + 21 = 38 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting T = 620 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (14.0) 310 entering 310 exiting 310 + 310 = 620 We, the undersigned, are residents of Garfield County and are opposed to the Commercial Zoning and Development of the Aspen Equestrian Estates property located on County Road 100 in Carbondale, CO. 2 %VI) 1111. tom -moi -_t /*�► t w411Q A-'-<1-652-e-e-Yilt144--- l 1'91y ,e V#rrn_W 4 � hie /k ES kt iLA,A,. Cali / , fat icic h Z:0,4 ? J 4q0-4-.B4,<EK 1:142 Crct.; 5 1- e r) Q•,t(/a 7 ALJ ck t, 0A.( t °4er ciKtret (peri 6)(0ra,(.a Ate i-4.,Aftl.e._ r ''i 4��� ' ' ‘o. tInq,, ()ate , Ca 26.13 514,5 )1/4.r‘ L &t& C2kiiOontt_(r, C 12-15 Rd. 1 12Cur bo,-,clale .1) �a oGir e, ,r�� p d7 k 0.0 • • We, the undersigned, are residents of Garfield County and are opposed to the Commercial Zoning and Development of the Aspen Equestrian Estates property located on County Road 100 in Carbondale, CO. igAvdclikke WIPrittee/2- ROAPIoQ al ate LMA -k_10 L '° Jc- ci'G P, PE' is e.- I1,".1 !.� 3L ti2 IA et (Qr f7 ev• (4_,, eeCtili c h .r✓Ot 0/62;' o�a (.t- 44-1 - i Ke_, r/cnt /e 61 87COdi- eatinl� e.e7r✓c C-a-rhlr7 (la /t , Cha AY(62 teen in,"���i , �AI��O1 <e(1_11 Co gm OC> g -/9060 C- f- . eciz i yr e(6 C es16'- ?-i-4-tr-fAA,4-11/ le- /220 Mr.,/ 'PA_ �ws C 81 oa edilo I; he olr iH .',( $1tt CGI,17 {ale Co , ‹.1(0 2 3 ,,In t;JeAn hc:I dd 1362 c Y Ct (a%b)nd , 6.0(.0a-3 ��rzuo�Q� • We, the undersigned, are residents of Garfield County and are opposed to the Commercial Zoning and Development of the Aspen Equestrian Estates property located on County Road 100 in Carbondale, CO. 64-0 cup -7c ; 6,.. k cw"0otidut C r\ no( O%all tat t 1_e yi Cep° r.,'&0„or yet 'ftA ir 6e v `fi W rise— Pcv�2i,r,;i Iia 4 �F k Cfhilo-Adde Carbwda P Q ci--46)---i (Dt „re. C Ca. f' (�felAvVs o c J S� s J.,UAW! ki) caveitcwtt enc 4/41 c p ll I ( ( t tc ti it C A ba.-.- dA 11 CaJv �� -rte• co We, the undersigned, are residents of Garfield County and are opposed to the Commercial Zoning and Development of the Aspen Equestrian Estates property located on County Road 100 in Carbondale, CO. 7 Pe. ANA S -`•i *r, / 375- 37 SO 041, " v 8762.3 Gam -1 1/'2,3 Com.�� G1� r�7 25 CD 3 5< C.4 4'67.3 k0 et6 P o 19) 1 t 3? &,.5 co r !Al :S._ We, the undersigned, are residents of Garfield County and are opposed to the Commercial Zoning and Development of the Aspen Equestrian Estates property located on County Road 100 in Carbon, le, CO. ILA_( s4Air -ccafce ,Z/&1. 55''/91; l l J C 2 /C CS tA,ix �d��K(C f «a-3 70o 21295/-i c x,(76On�'a,�e� ct 3 9so� 11 ri 61 .s— ,/ ems. . 4e C�l s .e. 10///w/517 C ,moo. $r�3 ' �� r E4 5.3 St-. C &v vie 70 4j We, the undersigned, are residents of Garfield County and are opposed to the Commercial Zoning and Development of the Aspen Equestrian Estates property located on County Road 10 1 in Carbo dale, CO. -if/f/0 a' ju- L Q a l_ �8�- /L:_ CC 3P, , -_/:111--(r1 / Co S--;_— We, the undersigned, are residents of Garfield County and are opposed to the Commercial Zoning and Development of the Aspen Equestrian Estates property located on County Road 100 in Carbondale, CO. 1 L2l tL /V/ L vL • �ci.h eFr> d jet_ 'z3 C� �Q ?-=i1 �0 L - -45--f - c--:=t1Ze co. St L, -z.`, ib q q I)Ai cff (i2h �3'G� dz r- e (# f fUf" 1 6 rn► '` ' %G S 1-t M n cLdko C' f (-f" 167-1 Li 7:4- Med Q - B&sCLRL 8cbZ/ I Lk . 5,MPPIR. LrA NThQ 4 . 5k10 A- Caceol ►2d in) £i I /a,4 CP-0)—('Co R6?.3 2.4 2 C* ih c'1 .-7 4*ki e-4, S-160/ .A.L(1.4437.....,itieL? ,t,1..5 , Apia Px pij S+I er /J od,ca jbz--, • • We, the undersigned, are residents of Garfield County and are opposed to the Commercial Zoning and Development of the Aspen Equestrian Estates property located on County Road 100 in Carbondale, CO. AtitMILI" srP Awl 72`/3 (LJ/ Pd 2s3 '(,) %&-5 /L-7 � � C. o�rT -2/bL/.l -C 57e,,s <� (;53 c c>/c �..1(.e f17i%1d rS761,3 GY1 ((Flit r We, the undersigned, are residents of Garfield County and are opposed to the Commercial Zoning and Development of the Aspen Equestrian Estates property located on County Road 100 in Carbondale, CO. • We, the undersigned, are residents of Garfield County and are opposed to the Commercial Zoning and Development of the Aspen Equestrian Estates property located on County Road 100 in Carbondale, CO. April 11, 2006 IRON ROSE CARBONDALE To: Garfield County Planning Commission • I own 200 plus acres in Garfield County know as the Iron Rose Ranch. I urge you to deny the plan to redevelop Aspen Equestrian Estates that Jay Weinberg has submitted through his planner Ron Liston. I would like the commission to consider these points. 1) Why would you do anything to divert commercial activity from the Town of Carbondale which we are trying to promote as an active well rounded commercial center? 2) Why would you change a PUD that you approved in 1998, just because the ill thought out development didn't work out as planned for the owners? You are not in the business of bailing them out. 3) Why would you amend the county's comprehensive plan to accommodate something like this? Unfortunately, I will not be in town to speak on this issue. However, I strongly urge the commission to reject this plan to redevelop Aspen Equestrian Estates any further. It is a wonderful community amenity just the way it is. Very Truly Yours, Thomas H. Bailey THB/llr IRON ROSE RANCH 1000 BLUE HERON LANE CARBONDALE • COLORADO 81623 P. 970.963.4817 Preshana Farms Planned Unit Development ("Aspen Equestrian Estates") Comprehensive Plan Amendment PUD Amendment Sketch Plan Review PART I: General Project Description • Developer: Representative: • Location: • Subject Lot: • Zoning: Aspen Equestrian Estates. LLC (Jay Weinberg) Land Design Partnership & Leavenworth & Karp County Road 100 (Catherine Store Road) just behind Catherine Store "Equestrian Lot" w/in Preshana Farms PUD (15.2 acres) PUD (Open Space / Equestrian Center) • Comprehensive Plan: Residential Subdivision (Study Area 1) Location of Subject Property (Assessors Map) STAFF PRESENTATION • PART I: General Project Description • PART II: Land Use Approvals Requested • PART III: Staff Review & Findings • PART IV: Staff Recommendation PART I: General Project Description • The Applicant proposes redevelop the equestrian portion tC IOsiiena"I arnis PUD in the following way: • Replace the existing horse paddocks. corrals. and 3 employee housing units with a neighborhood commercial village and open space as well as add new residential uses. • The Applicant propose to save the uses with water from either a new central system or connecting to the existing AAE / BC system, and sewer service will he provided by the Ranch at the Roaring Fork's central system. • Access is to be provided from CR 1(0) and Equestrian Way: and • The property is proposed to he subdivided intol2 lots comprised of • 5 commercial lots ranging from 22,600 to 35.309 sq. 0. in a neighborhood commercial village for a total of 20.000 sq. 0. of commercial space: • I open space lot to contain a pond and walking trail: • I residential / equestrian lot (main house and ADU); • I utility district lot: and • 4 single-family residential lots in a development project to include three phases. Preshana Farms PUD Site Plan 1 • Original Preshana Farms PUD Zoning Site Plan • Site Visit 2 Site Visit • Site Visit PART II: Land Use Approvals Requested • Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Districts map for Study Area I for 3.31 acres of the 152 -acre property within the Preshana Farms PUD from "Subdivision" / "Residential' to "General Commercial": ■ Amend the zoning designation of the subject 15.2 -acre lot in the Preshana Farms PUD from Open Space and Equestrian Center to the following zone districts: • Open Space District (5.23 acres) • R-10 Single -Family Residential District (1.2 acres) • Utility District (1 acre) • Residential Equestrian District: and (5.17 acres) - . Neighborhood Commercial Village District (3.31 acres) • Sketch Plan: The Applicant proposes a Sketch Plan as the first step to subdivide the 15.2 -acre property intol2 lots comprised of five commercial lots ranging from 22.600 to 35309 sq. ft. in a neighborhood commercial village: one open space lot: one residential / equestrian lot: one utility district lot: and four single-family residential lots in a development project to include three phases. 3 PART III: Process / Staff Review & Findings Process The zoning regulations state any application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment must he approved by the Planning Commission (Commission), prior to the Commission's recommendation on the PW / sketch plan portion of the development proposal. The Commission may consider the remainder of the application (PUD Amendment / Sketch Plan) following a positive decision of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to General Commercial. - In the event the Planning Commission denies an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. the remainder of the Applicant's requests becomes moot because commercial uses are not contemplated in the underlying zoning of ARRD or in the Comprehensive Plan. PART III: Process / Staff Review & Findings • Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Programs: • Section 2.0 Housing • Section 4.0 Commercial & Industrial Uses • Section 10.0 Urban Areas of Influence • Comprehensive Plan Methodology: MODIMAI CRITIrAL CRITICAL No: UlANAP,11:11.E. Aspen Equestrian Estates PART III: Process / Staff Review & Findings ■ 2.0 Housing (GOALS) • Encourage mix of housing types within a development. • 2.1 Housing (OBJECTIVES) • To encourage adequate. integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents throughout Garfield County. The original Preshana Farms PUD included three employee housing units intended to provide affordable housing to employees of the Equestrian Center. The present plan eliminates these three employee wits and replaces them with 6 free market units. - Staff finds that while the equestrian component would be eliminate& new employee opportunities are created with the proposed commercial village yet there is no mention of this accommodation for employees that could work in the commercial village. As a result. Staff finds the proposal conflicts with the goal of encouraging a mix of housing types within a development and the objective to encourage adequate. integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents throughout Garfield County. 4 Existing PUD Uses in the Equestrian Center District 1) Uses By Right: Agricultural uses including farm, garden, nursery, orchard, ranch and customary accessory uses, single family, two- family, and multi -family dwellings for persons employed on the • premises, riding staple, tack shop, vet clinic; kennel, day nursery, camp, and school; 2) Conditional Uses: \SMC 3) Special Uses: Domestic Water Storage Structure, wastewater treatment facility Aspen Equestrian Estates PART III: Process / Staff Review & Findings ■ 2.0 Housing (GOALS) • Encourage mix of housing types within a development. • 2.1 Housing (OBJECTIVES) • To encourage adequate. integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents throughout Garfield County. The original Preshana Farms PUD included three employee housing units intended to provide affordable housing to employees of the Equestrian Center. The present plan eliminates these three employee wits and replaces them with 6 free market units. - Staff finds that while the equestrian component would be eliminate& new employee opportunities are created with the proposed commercial village yet there is no mention of this accommodation for employees that could work in the commercial village. As a result. Staff finds the proposal conflicts with the goal of encouraging a mix of housing types within a development and the objective to encourage adequate. integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents throughout Garfield County. 4 PART III: Process / Staff Review & Findings • 4.0 Commercial & Industrial Uses (GOALS) • Garfield County will encourage the retention and expansion of convenient, viable and compatible commercial development capable of providing a wide variety of goods and services to serve the citizens of the County. • Future, long-term commercial and industrial development in western Garfield County and at interchanges along 1-70. Jbc Applicant did not submit a marketing / business plan in the application that demonstrates the viability of the proposed commercial village. Staff questions the viability of the specific commercial businesses having to compete with existing and established businesses that provide much wider goods and services only 3'/a miles away in two directions in either Carbondale or EI Jebel. That maximized shopping experience in those already existing Cormnercial areas provides the most convenience lir County residents. Faure, Tong -term commercial development should be located is western Garfield County and al interchanges along 1-70. Commercial uses in this location is not supported by this goal. PART III: Process / Staff Review & Findings • 10.0 Urban areas of lnfluence (GOALS) • Promote development in and around existing communities • 10.0 Urban areas of Influence (OBJECTIVES) • 10.5 Retain rural character outside of community limits The subject area is rural (agricultural and rural residential uses surround the area). Crarlield County is largely a rural agricultural county with a -right to farm" ethic / land use fabric which is reinforced with the Agricultural / Residential / Rural Density (ARRD) timing which governs almost all of the privately owned land in the County. As viewed along major County corridors such as Slate Nighway 82. commercial growth will significantly erode the rural character that helps m separate where one municipality stops and another begins and only exacerbates traffic flows and honing conflicts on that confider. Staff finds that commercial development m this location will serve as a major tipping point to commercial sprawl along the 82 corridor and is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the intent of this objective. PART III: Process / Staff Review & Findings: "Plan Methodology" Development Constraintss«sn,nC em,wem.,sm rrcnA.vnsawal t:nonlryw "•ran, Slope Consoainrs MODERATE MINOR SOLI Constraint, MODERATE MODERATE 1005 (Septic/1,1015 rains&.. MODERATE MAJOR t.linulpinin Coorlrai.Ls MODERATE MINOR /.and Use Considerations Land II se Uomparihilily CRITICAL NOT COMPATIBLE ROW d Conditions CRITICAL UNCERTAIN Infrastructure Nexis MODERTATE UNCERTAIN Dislence Psou, turban. Uses CRITICAL NOT COMPATIBLE PART III: Process / Staff Review & Findings • 4.0 Commercial & Industrial Uses (OBJECTIVES) • 4.1 To ensure that commercial development is compatible with adjacent land uses and mitigates impacts identified during the plan review process. • 4.3 Encourage the location of commercial development in appropriate areas that maximizes convenience to County residents. • 4.5 Ensure that the type, size and. scope of industrial and commercial developnent are consistent with the hog -term land use objectives of the County. ▪ 1.0 Commercial & Industrial Uses (POLICIES) • 4.1 Commercial development will be encouraged in areas where existing infrastructure (water and wastewater facilities) are currently available. • 4.3 Landscaping and. screening will be required to address specific visual impacts of industrial and commercial development. PART III: Process / Staff Review & Findings 10.(1 Urban areas of Influence (OBJECTIVES) • 10.5 Retain neral character outside of community limits • The Carbondale "Three Mile land Use Plan" supports the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan in that it shows a small "General Commercial" area at the Catherine Store location, It does not show any expansion of a commercial area. The area around Catherine Stare is designated as residential land use. • When the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan was developed. the citizens of Carbondale and Town Staff were involved with the process. We appreciate the opportunity to express our support for the land use policies already set fort/[ in the adopted communise plans and recommend that the land use at this location not be altered in any way that I) is inconsistent with the designated uses and 2) will require a change to the adopted plans to allow a piecemeal change in a use without broader consideration of the entire area. PART III: Process / Staff Review & Findings: "Plan Methodology" • COMPREHENSIVE PLAN METHODOLOGY The proposed commercial use is not compatible with the majority of the surrounding land uses which is a critical concern; The proposed commercial use's traffic impacts to CR 100 is uncertain due 10 significant ambiguities in the Traffic Impact Report regarding accurate trip generation; • It remains uncertain that the proposed commercial uses can connect to existing central water ,service which may deem the private system inconsistent with Plan Goats regarding hooking into existing infrastructure; and The proposed commercial development directly conflicts with goals and objectives regarding development outside of the areas of urban influence and is not compatible with this critical land use consideration. 5 PART III: Process / Staff Review & Findings: "Plan Methodology" The proposed commercial use is not compatible with the majority of the surrounding land uses which is a critical concern; 1) Existing adjacent and surrounding uses are residential and agricultural 2) Catherine Store not planned as Commercial by County 3) Serious land use policy challenge to PC as compared with Cattle Creek intersection or CMC intersection Residential Subdivisions & Traffic Routes 1 Blue Geek Ranch (49 du) 42 Aspen Equestrian Estates (50 du) 685t. Finnber (23)' 24 Renoir at Me Ro3nrm For* NPR du) 22 Llun's Rid.a Ob du) 23 Sun Mesa (30 du)' 17P.nonme Ranches Me dui 87 Ranch 0 Coulter Creels (26 dor ]Itirg's Row (44 dr) 32 Cerise Ranch (62 du) 70 White Claud (13 du) 71 Dakota (64 du) 16 Hawk Ridge (17 du) JJ, 21 Wooden Deer (22 du) 13 Pinyon Peaks (18 du) 14 Up Cattle Creek (12 dl) 9 Baby Beans (4 du) 1 15 Cottonwood Rdlov (13 dl) Other, CSIicohe Ranch (27 dl) TRAFFIC CONCERNS PART III: Process / Staff Review & Findings: "Plan Methodology" The proposed commercial use's traffic impacts to CR 100 is u8tettin, due to significant ambiguities in the Traffic Impact Report regarding accurate trip generation; I) Traffic Study does not account for professional / medical office uses; and 2) 886 driveway trips do not increase from 2006 to 2010 as background traffic / growth increases from 2006 to 2010. PART III: Process / Staff Review & Findings: "Plan Methodology" /t remains uncertain That the proposed commercial uses can ctikueL7Ya" existing central water service which may deem the private system inconsistent with Plan Goals regarding hooking into existing infrastructure; and The proposed commercial development directly conflicts with goals and otjectives regarding development outside of the areas of urban influence and is not compatible wi/h this critical land use consideration for Distance from Urban Areas. I) Iincouraging commercial growth in already existing urban areas maximizes convenience to County residents by providing a wide variety of goods and services in one location maximizing the one trip (only 3.5 miles further away); 2) Commercial growth in this location will significantly deteriorate rural buffer between Carbondale and El Jebel and serve as a catalyst for more intensive future commercial growth at the two opposing comers significantly degrading the 82 / CR 100 intersection placing GarCo on the financial hook for improvements. PART IV: Staff Recommendation • A re -designation of the area to allow commercial growth is ii o compatible° with surrounding land uses, directly conflicts with the goals and politic, of the Plan promoting development in and around existing communities. retaining rural character outside of community limits. and encouraging development that requires urban services to locate in areas where these services are available. ■ The original Plan designations never envisioned commercial growth in this area particularly since substantial commercial growth exists only 3.5 miles in either direction in Carbondale & EI Jebel. While the application proposes a list of uses -by -right which are proposed as "neighborhood commercial" uses. Staff disagrees with the use of the term "neighborhood commercial." The "neighborhood" described in the application is, in reality. an entire regional sub -basin of the County with a land area of approximately 26 sq. miles encompassing Missouri Heights and lower valley floor residential development. This application proposes an urban -style land use in an area characterized as a regional rural residential / agricultural setting. • Further, Staff asserts that any convenience needs of residents in the rural subdivision region are currently being met by Catherine Store. 6 • • PART IV: Staff Recommendation • Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan from Residential Subdivision to General Commercial finding that commercial growth in this area is not supported by the following goals, policies. objectives. and methodology of the Comprehensive Plan of 2000. • Staff Recommendation and Recommended motion on page 33 of Staff Report 7 C APR 1 0 2006 aks.,-- 4- 1C--ckk-2-tA °c-7 C. I4- A/D-v.�✓� Cou-100 n v c 1e , (6 3'/6 23 -- -7-o Cy ri-ed A k v461,E h3;3 'e ms 1" (,t 41 lit 1.'I q C k S -1-1/-2-a +0 utfcv ci t► -i) 5, cc /Z6f e c+8V- EXHIBIT se ek c c1 r 111,1 s (e- r s c r - C""/J (ale_ ctrl, z„v� �, �` , G 1. ,• c_ „ c- 4 ife,c.iy 3 2 , (c, -k 1 t �� 6u4,1 l.' OCA 'Z -'(Y d ti W e- civ"(. 1 4 j1 s c)- 1 ✓tsz_ C�NU�irk,eltsm, S L ve nu c vki,24ACAAA--), P (-)D 4d n-, v —C: es..savj 4c, lAoc.c) 2/1-C-1 '4± K�,,, k�yM1 • Fred A. Jarman Assistant Planning Director 108 8th Street, Ste. 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 R1-4,CEIVEDE' APR 11 2006 GARF INTY BUILDING & PANNING • Adam Sahnow 3114 Sopris Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re. Comp Plan Amendment / Preshana Farm PUD Amendment Neighborhood Commercial Village and Residential Lots Dear Mr. Jarman, EXHIBIT I am unable to attend the Planning Commision hearing regarding the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the PUD amendment to create a shopping complex at Catherine Store, but would like to support this proposal. I, as a commuter from down valley feel that the area offers a convenient location for more services than are currently available. With the increase in residential development around the area, I feel the proposed commercial/retail improvement would also offer an unavailable convinence to the residents in the area. Adam Sahnow Fred Jarman From: Ron Liston [rblist@quixnetnet] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 2:51 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Aspen Equestrian Estates FYI Original Message From: Glenveretto©aol.com [mailto:Glenveretto@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 2:32 PM To: rblist©quixnet.net Subject: Aspen Equestrian Estates EXHIBIT Mr Ron Listin Regarding the pending Commercial Development in this subdivision, I strongly support and Commercial Development. I own 3 lots in the subdivision and I believe it would enhance this subdivision and the surrounding area. Thank You Glen Veretto 505 298-5555 ED APR 1 0 2006 BUILDING & P ANNI Nle' Fred A. Jarman Assistant Planning Director 108 8th Street, Ste. 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re. Comp Plan Amendment / Preshana Farm PUD Amendment Neighborhood Commercial Village & Residential Lots Dear Mr. Jarman: • EXHIBIT Antony& Amiee Cullick 7484 County Rd. 100 Carbondale,CO 81623 I am unable to attend the Planning Commission hearing regarding the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the PUD amendment to create a neighborhood shopping village adjacent to Catherine Store but would like to express my support for this proposal. Catharine Store has a long standing history of providing important commercial services to the Mid Valley community and with the growing population in this area, there will also be increased demand for retail and personal services beyond the capacity of the Catharine Store site. The most logical location for these additional commercial services is adjacent to Catharine Store. Many local area residents will be able to walk to the proposed shopping village and the location is convenient for the residents of a large area of Missouri Height which may help to reduce traffic on Hwy 82. Additionally, it appears that the proposed shopping village site plan has been thoughtfully prepared so as to encourage future improvement to the traffic patterns at the County Road 100, Hwy 82 and Old Hwy 82 intersection. This proposal will be beneficial to County residents in both the short and long term and I am in full support of both the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the PUD Amendment. Regards, 'gnu ..• li_:1 APR 1 0 2006 GARF,' : LD C(u yy BUILDING & PLANNING Fred A. Jarman Assistant Planning Director 108 8th Street, Ste. 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 James Harris 161 Floyd Street El Jebel, CO 81623 970/963-9501 Re. Comp Plan Amendment / Preshana Farm PUD Amendment Neighborhood Commercial Village & Residential Lots Dear Mr. Jarman: I will not attend the Planning Commission hearing regarding the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the PUD amendment to create a neighborhood shopping village adjacent to Catherine Store I want the decision makers to know about my support for this project. Catharine Store is about the only option we have in this part of the valley; there will soon be increased demand for retail and personal services beyond the capacity of the Catharine Store. A logical solution to the future demand would be to put additional commercial spaces adjacent to Catharine Store. Many local area residents will be able to walk or bike to the proposed shopping village and the location is convenient for the residents of a large area of Missouri Heights. We would really appreciate having something closer to our home, since we almost always have to travel all the way to Glenwood Springs for needed purchases and services. It appears to me that the proposed shopping village site plan has been thoughtfully prepared so as to encourage future improvement to the County Road 100, Hwy 82 and Old Hwy 82 intersection. I am in full support of both the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the PUD Amendment. and believe that this proposal will be beneficial to County residents in both the short term and for the long run. Sincerely, Ines Harris April 7, 2006 Fred A. Jarman Assistant Planning Director 108 8th Street, Ste. 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 APR 1 0 2006 BthCo Re. Comp Plan Amendment / Preshana Farm PUD Amendment Neighborhood Commercial Village & Residential Lots Dear Mr. Jarman: Eric Rewinkel 203 Deer Run Carbondale, CO 81623 EXHIBIT I am unable to attend the Planning Commission hearing regarding the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the PUD amendment to create a neighborhood shopping village adjacent to Catherine Store but would like to express my support for this proposal. Catharine Store has a long standing history of providing important commercial services to the Mid Valley community and with the growing population in this area, there will also be increased demand for retail and personal services beyond the capacity of the Catharine Store site. The most logical location for these additional commercial services is adjacent to Catharine Store. Many local area residents will be able to walk to the proposed shopping village and the location is convenient for the residents of a large area of Missouri Heights which may help to reduce traffic on Hwy 82. Additionally, it appears that the proposed shopping village site plan has been thoughtfully prepared so as to encourage future improvement to the traffic patterns at the County Roadl00, Hwy 82 and Old Hwy 82 intersection. This proposal will be beneficial to County residents in both the short and long term and I am in full support of both the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the PUD Amendment. Regards, Eric Rewinkel 1 R IVED APR 1 2 2006 RESOLUTION NO. 6 GP�rr`=;EL�i COUNTY SERIES OF 2006 BUILDING & PLANNING A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF CARBONDALE, COLORADO, OPPOSING AMENDMENT OF THE PRESHANA FARM P.U.D. WHEREAS Aspen Equestrian Estates, L.L.C. has applied to Garfield County to amend the Preshana Farm P.U.D. to allow a neighborhood type commercial village to be established upon the Equestrian Lot depicted on the Final Plat of the Aspen Equestrian Estates Subdivision; and WHEREAS the Garfield County Building & Planning Department referred this land use application to the Town of Carbondale's Community Development Department for comment; and WHEREAS, in a letter to the Garfield County Planning Department dated April 6, 2006, the Town's Community Development staff recommended that Garfield County deny the subject application, noting that: a. The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan does not contemplate commercial growth in this location beyond the existing commercial facilities that are presently located at the southeast intersection of County Road 100 and Highway 82, which facilities include a small convenience store, a gas station and a liquor store; b. The proposed expanded uses include banks, travel agencies, retail clothing sales, and medical offices, which uses are inconsistent with surrounding rural - residential land uses; c. The Town of Carbondale's Three Mile Land Plan does not contemplate expanded commercial uses in this location; d. Commercial uses in this area should not be expanded without a broader consideration of land uses within this area of the county. And, WHEREAS the Town of Carbondale's Board of Trustees shares these concerns of the Town's Community Development staff regarding the subject application and wishes to inform the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners of these concerns. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF CARBONDALE, COLORADO, that: 1. For the above reasons, the Town is opposed to the expansion of existing commercial uses at the intersection of County Road 100 and Highway 82.