Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report PC 08.09.06August 9,2006 -- Planning Commission Exhibits for the PUD Zone District and Preliminary Plan: Rapids on the Colorado A Mail Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County ZnningResolution of 1978, as amended D Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended E Garfield County Comprehensive Plan F Town of New Castle Comprehensive Plan G Staff Report H Application for the PUD I Application for the Preliminary Plan J Irtter from Town of New Castle, dated Julv 10,2006 K Email from Colorado Department of Health & Environment dated July 10, 2006 L Letter from Colorado Department of Water Resources dated Julv 6. 2006 M Irtter from Colorado Department of Natural Resources date June 30, 2006 N Email from GarCo Road and Bridge dated June 16,2006 o Email from GarCo Vegetation dated July 13, 2006 P Email from GarCo Health dated June 28,2006 o l,etter from Resource Engineering dated July 11,2006 R Staff Report for a domestic wastewater treatment facility dated May 16,2C[,4 s Applicant's Power Point Presentation T Applicant's Power Point Presentation U Pictures v Letter from John Olson dated 815106 w Comprehensive Plan Drawings x Pictures t, i,iili,;ffit)ifitr,@,:ryyw#::;{ff Y Review Letter from Resource Ensineerins dated 11/1106 Z Review memo from the County Road and Bridee Department dated 10113106 AA Minutes from the 819106 Plannine Commission Meetine BB Memo from the County Vegetation Manaser dated 10131106 CC Review lrtter from CGS dated 10120106 DD Letter from Iravenworth & Karp dated 10109106 EE 4w tulA-)r/b,.)./l/, .a- t 7r*rl FF I Gr,w)u Lltu PC 8-9-06 RW The RaPids on the Colorado PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS TO PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION: OWNER: REPRESENTATIVE: ENGINEER ATTORNEY LOCATION: WATER: SEWER: SIZE: EXISTING ZONING: Zone District Amendment - PUD & Preliminary Plan Gene and Mary Hilton Gene Hilton Mountain Cross Leavenworth and KarP, PC One Mile West of New Castle on CR 335 Wells to serve a Central Water System Package Treatment Plant - Central Sewer 121.48 Acres A/l and A/F/F/D Below is a copy of the Assessors map as the property is currently subdivided -.x* @ 2. Below is a location of the in relation to the Town of New Castle PUD GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION Property Description: The Applicant is requesting to zone the subject parcel PUD to allow greater flexability and provide a more creative subdivision for greater density. The Proposal is for 121 units on 121.48 tota! acres, the acreage for the actual residential lots is 28.201. Proposed in the PUD are single family homes (attached and detached), open space, recreation trails, fisherman's access and infrastructure adequate to provide utilities to the development. Open space for the project will consist ol 670/o ol the development. Additional access to the Colorado River will be provided. lt is stated that diverse housing types will be provided and housing stock will be made available at time when there is a shoftage. The existing zoning is ARRD and Al. Currently, the subject property is a platted subdivision of 33 lots. ln order for the developer to propose greater density, the property will have to be zoned PUD. Attached in the applieation materials are the proposed zoned districts, setbacks, and lot size. APPLICABLE ZONING STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS: Please refer to $4.00 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution for specific details of standards and regulations for Planned Unit Developments. This report will only address those portions of $4.00 - Planned Unit Developments, that staff feels are lacking information, lacking detail, and have not met all of the zoning standards and regulations. STAFF COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC ISSUES RELATIVE TO THE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED PUD. 3. s4.04 CoNSISTENCY WITH THE MASTEH/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN : No puO or TPUD shatt 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 for an amendment to the Gartield County Masteriiomprehensive Plan may be made as part of a PUD application. Any apptication ior 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 shatt inctude justification for the amendment based upon criteria for estabtishing land use designations contained in the Master/Comprehensive Plan. (A. 97-1 09) (added 2002-1 2; TPUD) STAFF COMMENTS: The property is in the area of influence for the Town of New Gastle. As such, the County has determined the Town's Comprehensive Plan will be the recognized. This proposal is identified through the Town of New Castle's Compreheniive plan as Cluster Low Density Residential: 1 dwelling unit per acre. Uses: clusters of 5 to 10 dwelling units with open space or irrigated pasture. Purpose: to provide for suburban type development while maihtaining open space for preseruation of natural views, wildlife habitat, pastures or the like. The pioposed development meets the criteria of one dwelling unit per acre. Howevei, it is staff's opinion the uses of 5 to 10 dwelling units clustered is not reflected in the preliminary plan. lt is assumed the Town is trying to achieve a "pod" type of cluster development. The proposal is for basically one large cluster ol 121-units with access to ihe Colorado River with open space in the center and outside perimeter. S4.05.02 tt is recognized that the uniqueness of each proposa! for a PUD and TPUD requires {nat tne specifications, standards and requirements for various facilities, including but not limited to, affordable housing, streets, highways, alleys, utilities, -curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, parks, play- giound-s, schoot grounds, storm drainage, water supply and distribution, and Zewage cottectioi and treatment, may be subiect to modification from the speci-fications, standards, and requirements established in the Subdivision Regutations of Gartield County for like uses in other zone districts. The County Cimmissioners may, at the time of zoning as a PIJD and TPUD, waive or modify the specifications, standards and requirements which would be otherwise applicable, as requested by the applicant. Any waiver or modification of spiecifications, standards'and requirements witl only be approved if it can be demonstrated that the proposed waive(s) is consistent with "best engineering practices," as recommended by an engineer retained by the County. (A. 97'109) (amended 2002-12) STAFF COMMENTS: The number of proposed dwelling units will change the category of the internal streets to Minor Collectors (121 units by 9.57 trips per day - 1,158 total daily trips), as such the required right of way shall 'be 60'. Existing and proposed streets are 50' with curb gutter and sidewalks. On page 36 of the submitted application materials the developer states: "Additional Roads will be designed and constructed to County Standards." This is in fact contrary to road profile plans submitted with the preliminary plan. Understandably 50'with curb gutter and sidewalks may be acceptable; however, it is not specifically requested for consideration by the County. 54.06 INTERNAL COMPATIBILITY OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS : lf is recognized that certain individual land uses, regardless of their adherence to alt the-design elements provided for in this section, might not exist compatibly with one aiother. Therefore, a proposed PUD or TPLID shall be considered from the point of view of the relationship and compatibility of the individual elements of the Plan, and no PUD or TPUD shatt be approved which contains incompatible elements intemally or with neighboring propefi. (amended 2002-12). STAFF COMMENTS: The average proposed lot arrangement is 130'x70'which is 9,100 square feet. These lot sizes are considerably smaller than any neighboring property. The current subdivision of the subject property with 33 lots is much more compatible with neighboring properties. The proposed density and residential lot sizes are not compatible with the neighborhood. s4.07 STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS s4.07.01 The County Commissioners may approve a proposed PUD rezoning upon a finding that it will implement the purposes of this section-and witt meet the standards and requiremenfs set forth in this section. A TPUD must also meet the additional standards and requirements set fotth in the supplementary regulations found in 95.11 of this resolution. (amended 2002-12) Af-street Parkings4.07.03 STAFF COMMENTS; Per the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the developer and the Town of New Castle, the applicant is required to provide_ 9 off-street parking spaces for access to the river trail and Colorado River. On page 38 of the appiication materials, there are provisions for 8 otf-street parking spaces. s4.07.03 The PUD shall meet the following site plan criteria unless the appticant can demonstrate that one (1) or more of them is not appticable or that a practical solution has been otherwise achieved: (1) The PUD shall have an appropriate relationship to the surrounding area, with unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area being minimized. STAFF COMMENTS: The surrounding area has no residential lots similar in size to the proposal. The proposed PUD will provide single family homes. as in the area, but bn much smaller lots which are not compatible with the neighborhood. ln conflict with the MOU, the applicant is proposing to build "attached single famiry" dwellings, which by definition in the County Zoning Resolution (52.02.21 anO $2.0e.23) are not single family residential units. The MOU clearly states: ....shall not contain more than one-hundred twenty-one (121) sinqle familv residential units..." (2) The P|JD shatt provide an adequate intemal street circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, safety, separation from tiving areas, convenience and access. Private internal streets may be permitted, provided that adequate access for potice and fire protection is maintained. Bicycle traffic shall be provided for when the site is used for residential purposes. STAFF COMMENTS: No formal request has been made to change the required right of way from 60'to 50' with curb gutter and sidewalk 54.07.11 - 4.15.04 Affordable Housing: STAFF COMMENTS: Unfortunately, in this area of the County, there are no affordable housing requirements and the applicant is not proposing any atfordable housing-units. lf affordable housing units will be made available, the cost for the unitJshould range between $147,2OO and 190,000 (per Garfield County Housing Study). Given the current housing market, it is highly unlikely that housing stock in this price range will be offered. 54.08.04 PUD Proposed Uses: STAFF COMMENTS: Zero lot line or "attached single family'' (lots 114-121\ residences by virtue of the Gartield County Zoning Resolution, are considered either a two iamily dwelling or a multi family dwelling residences. The Cluster- Single Family Resldential District, as proposed, does not list either of these types residences as uses allowed in the district. Open Space District: Staff is suggesting that no conditional uses be allowed in this district. 1. PRELIMINARY PLAN GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION As stated in the PUD section of this staff report, the request is for 121 residential lots on approximately 1 21 .48 acres, please see the application materials for the proposed tayout of ine subdivision. Currently, there are three single family homes on the propefty, all owned by the applicant, which will have to conform to the newly proposed lot standards. The property is currently subdivided with 33 lots that are approximately 2 acres each. Most of the internal road infrastructure is in place. Through the requested zoned district amendment to PUD, is the applicant able to request this kind of density. 2. REFERRALS Staff has referred the application to the following State agencies and/or County departments for their review and comment. Comments received are briefly mentloned below or are more comprehensively incorporated within the appropriate section of this staff repofi. Town of New Castle: Exhibit J Town of Silt: No Comments Burning Mountain Fire District: No Comments RE-2 Schoo! District: No Comments Colorado Department of Transportation: No Comments Colorado Division of Wildlife: No Comments Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: Exhibit K Golorado Division of Water Resources: Exhibit L Colorado Department of Natural Resources: Exhibit M Garfield County Road & Bridge Department: Exhibit N Garfield County Vegetation: Exhibit O Garfield County Engineer: No Comments Garfield County Health: Exhibit P Resource Engineering lnc.: Exhibit Q 3. GENERAL RELATTONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Rapids on the Colorado PUD is in Study Area 2 in the Comprehensive PIan. The area is identified as "Subdivision". The property is in the two mile area of influence for the Town of New Castle. As such, the County has determined the Town's Comprehensive Plan will be the recognized concerning densities and land uses. This proposal is identified through the Town of New Castle's Comprehensive plan as Cluster Low Density Residential: 1 dwelling unit per acre. Uses: clusters of 5 to 10 dwelling units with open space or irrigated pasture. Purpose: to provide for suburban type development while maintaining open space for preseruation of natural views, wildlife habitat, pastures or the like. The proposed development meets the criteria of one dwelling unit per acre. However, it is staff's opinion the uses of 5 to 10 dwelling units clustered is not reflected in the preliminary plan. lt is assumed the Town is trying to achieve a "pod" type of cluster development. Attached single family homes are also proposed for this PUD, pursuant to $2.02.20-2.02.22 an attached single family home is defined as either a two family dwelling unit or multiple family dwelling unit. Staff would also opine that two family and multi family units are not contemplated as uses in the Cluster Low Density Residential district in New Castle. The proposal is for basically one large cluster of 121 units with access to the Colorado River with open space in the center and outside perimeter. 4. APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS: Please refer to $4:00 of the Garfield County subdivision regulations for the proposed Preliminary Plan. This report will only address those portions of $4:00 - Preliminary Plan, that staff feels are lacking information, lacking detail, and have not met al! of the subdivision standards and regulations. 5. STAFF COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC ISSUES RELATIVE TO THE SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAN. $4:60 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: E. Evidence that all areas of the proposed subdivision, which may involve soil or topographical conditions presenting hazards or requiring special precautions, have been identified, and the proposed uses of these areas are compatible with such conditions; STAFF COMMENTS: Resource Engineers, lnc state that the Geology and Subsudace Soils study conducted in 1980 include debris flow potential, debris fans, high ground water, and soils which are subject to ditferential movement when loaded or wetted. The old 1980 report does not map the hazard areas. An updated report should be completed to map the identified hazards as required for the preliminary plan. $4:70, 4:80, 4:90, SUPPLEMENTAL TNFORMATTON Geology and Soils: Please see previous comments concerning geology and subsufface soils. STAFF COMMENTS: Geologic and Floodplain: Resource Engineers lnc. states: Tlw river frarrtagre lo& *re rrithin the fleod fringe area of the fioodplain boundary, Thia lat *ma was the suhiect of a Floodplain $peclal UEe Fennit for the original aubdivision. The ane* wae filled to raiee the lat area aboye the tr00 year base flood *le$Etion. Ae E rcsult, the proposed lots are shovm tu be outaide uf the floodplain. Porticns of popoeed Lots Its through 22 arrd 2$ through 33 are rutlhin the floodplain boundary, but elevated aharae the 1S0 year bam flood elevaiian. lt is remmrnended that a new or arnetded floodplain Special tlse Fermit he obtained for this proje#t due to th* abov* ar# due to permtt condit*ons vrhich ronllicf, with ttw nenr project and our rsvisw recornmendsthn* Ef ths propsssd prnisEt, No formal request has been made to change the existing SUP that would reflect the proposed changes in the floodplain. Vegetation: The applicant has not submitted a noxious weed map and inventory for the property. No weed mitigation plan has been submitted. The applicant has stated that a plan for noxious weed mitigation will be incorporated into the protective covenants , this information cannot be found. A re-vegetation plan and plant list materials has not been submitted. Utility Plan - Water: Water will be provided by a centralized system that will ultimately be owned and operated by the HOA. The State has noted that material injury will occur to decreed water rights unless the applicant amends the current plan for augmentation pursuant to W-3262 and obtains and maintains valid wel! permits for the proposed wells pursuant to a coutt approved amended plan for augmentation. The applicant states the system is operational and can serve 92 of the proposed 121 units and a preliminary construction loan has been obtained to provide for additional improvements. Utility Plan - Sanitary Sewer: To be serued by a wastewater treatment facility. The County approved a site application for a wastewater treatment facility in 2004. Pursuant to the MOU with New Castle, the applicant has sized the "site" accordingly to provide for future treatment of properties to the east. lnitially, the developer wi!! own and operate the facility and finally the HOA will take on responsibility. No designs for the system are included in the application materials. The design of the system was done nine years ago and has never operated as a public system; the State does not recognize the system and no Public Water System ldentification Number has been issued. On a state level, the Rapids will need to go through a plans, specifications and new system capacity development review prior to operation as a public water system. The applicant has stated that preliminary arrangements for funds to construct the system are in place. Staff is not aware of what that proposed method of financing will be. The actual application to the state for approval is not found in the submitta! requirements. g4:94 Off-Site Road lmpacts: Off-site road impacts shall be evaluated for subdivisions through completion of a traffic study identifying the volume of traffic generated from the development, based on Trip Generation Rate calculations utilizing the most current lnstitute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, to establish an Average Daily Traffic (ADT). The road impact fee shall be established as a result of entering the applicable data identified in the Road lmpact Fee calculation Work Sheet located in Appendix A. STAFF GOMMENTS: The Town of New Castle, Garfield County Road and Bridge Department, Resource Engineers and Garfield County Planning Statf are of the opinion the traffic study does not adequately address all of the traffic impacts this development will have on County, City and State roads. There are several flaws and items missing from the traffic study. The traffic study assumes a 3o/o growth to estimate tratfic at a current leve! from 2002 numbers. The 3% was not compounded on a yearly basis to more accurately show the increase traffic levels in the area. Additionally the traffic counts do not accurately assume the percentage of traffic going east and west on CR 335. An 80-20 split was used, but when looking a|2002 counts a more accurate spit would be 84% to the east and 16% to the west on CR 335. No data was submitted as to the atfects this development will have on the l-70 intersection New Castle or Silt. With a large amount of traffic atfecting the New Castle intersection, the tratfic study needs to include the growth of the Town, including the Park River PUD with 153 units, located just east of the l-70 and CR335 interchange. Additional growth in the Castle Valley area will also decrease the level of service at this interchange. tt is staff's opinion this study does not accurately show the otf-site impacts this development will have on the surrounding area. Road/Access Plan: Proposed internal roads do not meet the County requirement for 60' of right of way. No specific request has been made through the PUD to change the right of way to 50' with curb gutter and sidewalk 59.70 Fire Protection: No plans for fire protection have been submitted and there have been no formal comments from the Burning Mountain Fire protection district. 6. SUGGESTED FINDINGS. PUD: That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the County Planning Commissioners. That the hearing before the County Planning Commissioners was extensive. A!! pertinent facts, matters and issues were not submitted by the applicant. All interested parties were heard at that meeting. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed PUD is not in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and 1. 3. 4. 5. welfare of the citizens of Gadield County. That the PUD is not is not in conformance to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1973, as amended. That the PUD is not in confdrmance to the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984 as amended. That the PUD is not in conformance to the Garfield County and New Castle Comprehensive Plans. SUGGESTED FINDINGS . PRELIMINARY PLAN: 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the County Planning Commissioners. 2. That the hearing before the County Planning Commissionels was extensive. All pertinent facts, matters and issues were not submitted by the applicant. All interested parties were heard at that meeting. g. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed Preliminary Plan is not in the best. interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Gadield County. 4. That the Preliminary Plan is not in conformance to the Gadield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984 as amended. 5. That the Preliminary Plan Application is not in conformance to the Garfield County and New Castle Comprehensive Plans. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending Planning Commission deny the applicants request for a Zone District Amendment for a PUD and Preliminary'Plan for the Rapids on the Colorado for the abdve stated findings of fact. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: "l move to deny the requested Zone District Amendment for a PUD for the Rapids on the Cotorado Subdivision for the following reasons" o The proposed PUD is not in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 7. 8. 9. 10 That the PUD is not is not in conformance to the Gadield County Zoning Resolution of 1973, as amended. That the PUD is not in conformance to the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984 as amended. That the Preliminary Plan Application is not in conformance to the Garfield County and New Castle Comprehensive Plans. "t move to deny the requested Preliminary Plan for Rapids on the Colorado Subdivision for the following reasons" The proposed Preliminary Plan is not in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. That the Preliminary Plan is not in conformance to the Gafield County Subdivision Regulations of 19M as amended. That the Preliminary Plan Application is not in conformance to the Garfield County and New Castle Comprehensive Plans.