HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.01 BOCC Meeting MinutesCONSIDER A REQUEST TO REZONE A PROPERTY FROM ARRD AND AI TO PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AND A SUBSEQUENT PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE "RAPIDS ON THE
COLORADO.'' APPLICANTS ARE RAPIDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THE RAPIDS
oN THE COLORADO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCTATION, AND GENE R. HILTON AND MARY JO
HILTON. - FRED JARMAN
Lee Leavenworth and Karl Hanlon doing the presentation for the applicant Gene and Mary
Jo Hilton for Rapids, Chris Hill, Fred Jarman and Carolyn Dahlgren were present.
This was actually a continued meeting to obtain comments from New Castle. We had
previously accepted notice and then continued. The exhibits were submitted and entered
into the record.
Chairman Martin swore in the speakers.
Fred submitted the existing exhibits: Exhibits from August 9, 2006 P & Z Meeting -
Exhibit A -Mail Receipts; Exhibit B - Proof of Publication; Exhibit C - Garfield County
ZoningRegulations of 1978 as amended; Exhibit D - Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations of 1984 as amended; Exhibit E -Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of
2000; Exhibit F - Town of New Castle Comprehensive Plan; Exhibit G - Staff report;
Exhibit H - Application for the PUD; Exhibit I - Application for the Preliminary Plan;
Exhibit J - lrtter from Town of New Castle, dated July 10, 20[16; Exhibit K . Etnail from
Colorado Department of Health and Environment dated July 10,2006; Exhitit L --,Letter
from Colorado Department of Water Resources dated July 6, 2006; Exhtbit'M - l.etter
from Colorado Department of Natural Resources dated June 30, 2006; Exhibit N- Email
from GarCo Road and Bridge dated June 16, 2006; Exhibit O - Email from GarC,o
Vegetation dated July 13, 2C[l6; Exhibit P - Email from GarCo Health dated JunS'28, 2006;
Exhibit Q - lrtter from Resource Engineering dated July I1,200,6; Exhibit R - Staff report
for a domestic wastewater treatment facility dated May ldl 2004; Exhibit $- Applicant's
Power Point Presentation; Exhibit T - Applicant's Portrp,r,,loia! Presentation; Exhibit U -
Pictures; Exhibit V - [rtter from John Olson dated 8-5-06; Exhibit W - Comprehensive
Plan Drawings: Exhibit X - Pictures; New Exhibits for hearing orr November 8, 2006 P &
Z Meeting - Exhibit Y - Review Letter from Resource Engineedng dated l1-01-06; Exhibit
Z - Review memo from the County Road and Bridge Department dated 10-13-06; Exhibit
AA - Minutes from the 8-9-06 Planning Commission Meeting; Exhibit BB - Memo from
the County Vegetation Manager dated 10.-31.2006; Eihibit CC - Review Letter from CGS
dated 10-20-06; Exhibit DD - lrtter from'Leavenworth & Karp dated 10-09-06; Exhibit
EE - Letter from the Burning Mountdn Fire Disttict dated ll-07-2}06; Exhibit FF - Email
from CDOT dated 1 1-08-06; Exhibit GG - lrtter from the DWR dated 11-06-06; Exhibit
HH - Letter from Brad $ollman dated'11-08-06; New Exhibits for 1-10-06 Planning &
Tnning Commission M€bting - Exhibit II - Letter from L & K dated.12-20-06 and well
permits; Exhibit JJ,- Enraii from Craig Lis (DWR dated l-03-07); Exhibit KK - Letter
from lravenworth & Karp dated 12-20-06; Exhibit JJ - Email from Craig Lis (DWR 1-30-
07) Exhibit KK - Applicant's color rendition of plan; Exhibit LL - Applicant's PowerPoint
PresentatiottjExhibit MM - [rtter from Larry and Virginia Schmueser dated 12-21-06;
Exhibitus{Q[- txttel* from Lynn and Pat Dwyer; Exhibit OO - ILC indication welUW-WFT
WWTF vs well plan; Exhibit RR - Mapping from Mr. Hayes; Exhibit
fqoni the 1-10-07 Planning Commission Public Hearing; Exhibit TT - Irtter
from gineering dated 7-13-07; Exhibit UU - Letter from US AGBank dated 5-
2l-Zo07;E#rhibit W - Letter from the Town of New Castle Trustees dated 7-l-O7; Exhibit
WW - lrtter from the DWR dated 2-06-2007.
Cover letter from Karl - dated 4-30-07 consisting of 7 letters - wasn't clear if it was on the
exhibit list.
Fred stated that these copies were inserted into the binder.
Weed Management plan
New Exhibit - Exhibit XX- letter from Leavenworth and Karp.
Chairman Martin entered Exhibits A - WW and XX into the record.
PRO.IECT SUMMARY
1:53;00
Fred explained the image was from the Assessor's office as an overlay.
Densities in Mountain Shadows were given. Mountain Shadows has .75 ac per resident and
Apple Tree .3 acres.
Fred showed the boundaries of the CR 335 - the Rippy exemption for commercial
development was pointed out. He pointed out the 150,000 water tank and sewer that is
existing. This was originally approved as a 33 lot subdivision.
The Applicant is requesting to rezone the subject parcel from AI and ARRD to PUD to
allow greater flexibility and provide a more creative subdivision for greater density. The
property is presently zoned ARRD and AI and has been subdivided into 33 residential lots
with four single-family dwellings constructed in the development served by an existing
central water supply system and ISDS.
The proposal is for 104 single-family lots on I2I.48 total acres, the acreage for the actual
residential lots is 28.20L The PUD also proposes land dedicated to open space, recreation
trails, fisherman's access and infrastructure adequate to provide utilities to the
development. Open space for the project will consist of 66Vo of the development.
Additional public access to the Colorado River will be provided.
The property extends into the middle of the river.
6 short cul-de-sacs and a proposed wastewater system and parking spaces for access to the
river. A house will be placed in-between the existing houses build on the property. The
proposed density is 1.16 acldu and the New Castle comprehensive a 1 acro per dwelling
unit.
Originally the proposed PUD was for 121 units. A number of changes have bebn made. A
number of hearings at the Planning Commission were heard.
LAND USE REOUESTS
The Application consists of a combined request
Plan approval. More specifically,
*..u$u,,.
for PUD appi6Val as wellas Preliminary
Itli | $\'1) Rezone the property to Planned Unit Developgrrilt,(PUD)
The Applicant proposes to rezone the property fr tn iis current zoning of A/R/RD
and A/I to PUD in order to modify the dimensional requirements and uses of the
zone district for the subject site. :,i2) Preliminary PIan
The Applicant proposes to subdivide the propqrty into 104 lots for the construction
of single-family dwellings and leavd the remaiqder of the property to be devoted to
open space and infrastructure. The property is broken down into the following land
use areas:
104 Residential Loff(Totbl area
Common Open Spqee. "
II. REFERRAL AGENCIES
Staff referred the Application to the following State agencies and/or County Departments
for their review and comment. Comments received are briefly mentioned below or are
more comprehensively incorporated within the appropriate section of this staff report.
A. Town of New Castle: Exhibits J and VV
B. Town of Silt: No Comments
C. Burning Mountain Fire District: No Comments
D. RE-2 School District: No Comments
E. Colorado Department of Transportation: No Comments
F. Colorado Division of Wildlife: No Comments
G. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: Exhibit K
H. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Exhibit L
I. Colorado Department of Natural Resources: Exhibit M
J. Garfield County Road & Bridge Department: Exhibits N and Z
K. Garfield County Vegetation: Exhibits O and BB
L. Garfield County Health: Exhibit P
M. Resource Engineering Inc.: Exhibits Q,Y, and TT
N. Colorado Geologic Survey: Exhibit CC
III. STAFF COMMENTS FOR THE REZONE GROM ARRD AND AI) TO PUD
The following section presents the required review standards and criteria used to determine
the proposed development's compliance with Garfield County Planned Unit Development
regulations. The applicable standards are in bold and italicized text followed by a Staff
response.
4.04 CONSISTENCY WITH THE MASTER4COMPREHENSIVE PIA,N
No PUD shall be approved unlcss it is found by the County Commissionerc to be inNo PUD shall be approved unless it is Jbund by the County Commissionerc to be in
general conformitj' with the Countj's MasterlComprefrensive plan(s). When
appropriate. afl application for an amendment to the Garfield Countvappropriate, an application for an amendrnent- to the Garfivld County
MasterlComorehensiie Plan mav be made as nart of a PUD aonlication. Anv aoolication
for Master/Comprehensive Prtn amendmint niust be ffiroved by tfie'Ptanning
aDDuCAflOn. AnV ADDUCAfuO0
ffiroved by tfie'Ptanning
appropriate, an application for an amendrnent- to the Garfivld County
Master/Comorehensiie Plan mav be made as nart of a PUD aonlication. Anv aoolication
Commission, prior to its recommendation on the PUD appliCation, and-may occur af thb
sarne meeting, Applications for Comprehensive Pkn amendment shall include
Commission, prior to its recommendation on the PUD application, and may occur at the
sarne_ meeting Applications for Comprehensive Pkn amendment shall includesafne tneenng, Appucanons Jor Lomprenenstve rwtn amenamenr snau tnctaaejustification lor t6e amendmint based upon criteria for estahlishing land uselusnficanon Jor tne annendment oased upon cnlena
designations c ontained in the MasterlC omprehensiv e Plan.
8@""",**ftheGarfieldCountyZoningRegulation*-***ii...,op,,J$h1beapproved
unless it is found to be in general conformity with th&l;epuh[y's.,-\4aster / Comprehensive
Plan." The property is located in Study Area2 as identifiSd;in the County's Comprehensive
Plan of 2000. In this case, the property also happens to be loihted within the "Area of
Urban Influence" for New Castle. Therefore, in addition to revlEwing the County's policies
and goals, the County also looks to the New Castle's master plan for guidance of
appropriate future land use in that area.
A. Town of New Castle's Master Pla$
This area is identified in the Town of New Castle's Comprehensive plan as Cluster [,ow
Density Residential (CLDR) which l$ rnure specifically defined as the following:
t): l$welling unit per acre;
2) M: Clusters of".$ to 10 ullits with open space or inigated pasture; and
3) Purpose: fo4rd)ide'for subarban type development while maintaining open space
for presengfin.bf iatural views, wildlife habitat, pastures or the like.
Staff Response . *
Staff finds tpE nropb#d density in the development (1.16 acres / dwelling unit) is actually
lower than thti,density criteria of one dwelling unit per acre and therefore meets the Town's
criteria for density, Additionally, it appears the proposal attempts to achieve a cluster
design where thdie is Some clustering of lots into pods surounded by open space. Staff
fi-qds'brptterclusterihg could be better achieved by reducing the number of lots and their
fEbpcctife=lot sizes to achieve more open space.
Froril,na sitb planning perspective, the very intent of "clustering" is to allow for small lot
.i2ss iil'r,#Mer to reduce the overall development footprint on a property to preserve
valuable *features of the property while possibly reducing infrastructure costs. A good
example of this type of design is that of Blue Creek Ranch approved by the County in
2002.
The l-acre per lot density is a maximum density and not a development right. It would
appear that a reduction in density may allow for more defined "clustering" to occur on the
property that would achieve its intent. Staff finds the proposed design is essentially one
large group of lots circled around a pond and does not meet the "cluster" intent of the
master plan. Lastly, the purpose of the Cluster Low Density Residential designation is to
provide for "suburban type development while maintaining open space for preservation of
natural views, wildlife habitat, pastures or the like."
Ultimately, Staff finds the design, while "a bit crowded", could be considered in the ambit
of the Town of New Castle's Comprehensive Plan where portions of the lots are in pods of
5 to l0 units and wildlife habitat is protected along the undeveloped riparian a.reas along
the Coloardo River; however, Staff continues to assert the design is not a cluster design.
Otherwise, Staff finds the PUD Application is in general conformity with the Town of New
Castle's Master Plan.
B. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000
As mentioned earlier, the property is presently designated as "subdivision" on the
Proposed Land Use District Map as a result of the BOCC's approval of the 33-lot
subdivision. Prior to that, the designation was "privately owned lands with site specific use
limitations such as floodplain, slope hazard, septic constraints to be evaluated at plan
review." In this case, the primary considerations include floodplain and minor / benign
debris flow as identified by the Colorado Geologic Survey which have both been mitigated
for through the site design.
During an initial review, the Town of New Castle (hereinafter, the Town) entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Applicant which ultimately stated the
proposal is in "substantial compliance" with the Town's Comprehensive Plan except for
the originally proposed density of l2l lots. The Town stated it would support the
application so long as the developer provided the following:
1) A public trail with several access points to the river;
2) Perpetual preservation of the open space tract on the south side of CR 335;
3) That any required road impacts fees be spent directly on CR 335 if so agreed by
the County; and
4) Oversize the location to handle a future increase in the wastewater treatment
plant to accommodate Apple Tree Mobile Home Park and ttre lOO acies next to
the development which all requires approval by CDPHE.= ., : it
Staff finds that the Memorandum of Understanding betweon.tho Appiicant and the
Town formally establishes that the Town agrees that the propoied development is in
substantial compliance with the Town's Comprehensive Plan so lorig ps*,the conditions
briefly mentioned above were met by the developer.,HoWever, that NdUU expired and
Staff referred the revised 104 development plq6..to the Town which provided the
following comments:
After careful consideration of the comrnents provlded by the applicant, the public, and town
staff, the New Castle Town Council takes no position on the zone dlstrict amendment andpreliminary plan application for the Rapids PUD. If, however, the Board of County
Commissioners chooses to approve the appllcation, the Town of New Castle strongly
recommends that the following condlUons be included:
d'*' .,\*o*
1. Road impact fees to be paid by the Rapids proJect shall be applled to lmprovements onCounty Road 335 based upon recommendations from the engineers representing Raplds
PUD, New Castle and Garfield County.
2. The Garfleld County Board of Cornmissloners, recognizing the impact of traffic that thisproJect wlll create on the Interstate 70 interchange at New Castle, agrees to join the Town of
New castle in its effo*s to lmprove the capaclty of this lnterchangi
3. The appllcant is encouraged to explore the concept of reglonal rural wastewater treatmentplanning to address the needs of the property in proximity to this deuelopment.
4 4. Public access and parking shall be provided to the Colorado Rlver for noncommerclal
recreatlonal uses, and the Appllcant shall construct a public trail along the length of the rlver
frontage.
5. The land owned by the Applicant south of Counfi Road 335 shall be retatned as
undeveloped open space,
6.. The Rapids proJect shall include a variety of housing types (not just slngle-famlly) toaddress affordable housing needs in Gartield County, to iomply with the CountyComprehensive Plan houslng policies and to promote clustering of tfre lots/unlts thereby,supportlng open space tn the developrnent design.
7. A landscaping plan should be included in order to mitlgate the visual impacts caused bythis development, including how the development is viewed from Interstate 70. GarfleldCounty should adopt a requirement to include landscaping plans as part of a subdivlsion
application.
The Town of New Castle appreciates the opportunlty to provlde lnput on this proJect. BecauseIt is within our planning area, it will create impacts to our" communlty.' fne proposed
conditions outllned above are an atternpt to help mitigate those impacts. The Town values
the cooperatlve relationship wlth Gadleld County on land use applicaiions within our planning
area and sees it as a benefit for both munlclpal and county residents"
The Board is being asked by the Town of New Castle to contemplate a variety of issues
in their letter regarding this development. Ultimately, the Board will need to make a
finding that the PUD is in general conformance with the goals, policies and objectives
of the County's Comprehensive Plan for development in the Area of Urban Influence.
Staff finds the following goals and policies have not been met by this PUD:
Regarding other Goals, Objectives and Policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan,
the proposal appears to be in conflict with the following Goals, Objdetives, ildPolicies:
#''o " '10.2 Development that requires urban Services will be t*,{furg#,(,! tgllocate in
areas where these services are available. :,x. ':,- "..r{;
l.;*
Staff Finding
.\
...
t:1.t. l:-!r,, ':Hl
This is an objective whose pulpose is to further the concept df "concurrency planning"
where growth should only occur in areas'fthere urban (municipal or Special District)
services already exists. In this case, the {pTlicant proposes private central water and
sewei services which are of an urban Hesign"p_ut are a private system and not
contemplated by growth pattern p-1.S8bqiofta.
"r_t"7it^
municipality or boundaries of a
district. If this objective intended h. Atr1ry'flrivate systems, it would render this
objective meaningless. The dev$lUpr.nerit of private water / sewer systems is in direct
conflict with this objective.
,,.'
10.5 Rerarz*-5diic I eharacter i;i'*, of community limits.
staff Finding F* "
Arguably, t\p(f"rufal character" of the subject property has already been lost to the
development appffivals already provided by the BOCC to develop the property into 33
home sit85:'"Nonetholess, the property will certainly become less rural with the increase
in dpnsjty frgqea rrii.ts*'to 104 units.
,' ' ).Q "',. EffiouifiEe a mix of hoasing types within a develapment
StAtfBitrdine ..
Thd=p,roposal ihcludes 104 uniform single-family dwelling lots. There is no variety of
siiig-types throughout the developmJtrt contrary to this goal. The lack of a variety of"4r -4n - -hotsiffitypes is also a requirement for a PUD, which has not been met.
7'ff^' Garfield County will strongly discourage the proliferation of private
and sewer systems.
sraff Findins
Similar to objective 1O.2 above, this proposed PUD is inconsistent with this objective
because the PUD proposes a private water and sewer system. In this case, however, the
BOCC already approved a central water system for the existing 33 lot subdivision
which has been constructed. The BOCC also recommended approval of the Site Plan
Application for the wastewater treatment plant to the Colorado Department of Public
Health & Environment (CDPHE). Staff would add that the present 33 lot subdivision
has the ability / approval to install 33 ISDS immediately adjacent to the Colorado
River. From an environmental health perspective, a central sewer system appears to be
more sensitive to the natural environment that 33 ISDS on the Colorado River.
Visual Corridor
The property is located with the "Visual Corridor" which is based on significant view-
sheds or natural features, distance from a major travel corridor, and topographic
conditions that define sight distance from a major roadway. In this way (and as
recognized by the Plan by placing land use value on visual corridors), I-70 serves as a
linear gateway to the rest of the County and it provides visitors to Garfield County with
their first impression. This impression also assumes the rest of the County is treated in
the same manner regarding appropriate land use or associated mitigation of land uses.
An unmitigated or inappropriate land use only detracts from the natural assets /
resources of the County.
2.0 Housing Goals
To provide all types of housing that ensures current and future residents
equitable hoasing opportunities which are designed to provide safe, efficient
residential structures that are compatible with and that protect the natural
environment.
Encourage mix of housing types within a development.
2.0 Housing Objectives
2.1 To encourage adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents
throughoat Garfield C ounty.
2.3 Residential development should be designed and located to ensure
compatibility with existiig andfuture adjacent development,,,tt'"!r'a,
2.5 Residential development should respect the natural chql'adtqris.!$gs. of a
particular site, including topography, vegetation, water fe&ttlbs, Sfi'itloffi,and
ricrtnl rolnlinnchint utith crttnttntlino Inni rtsot nmtl tiout thoil&'. ".;.. &- ,l,}vtsual rebtionskips with suffounding land uses and view shqds: )vt^ *. %,
From a much larger perspective, the County Planning Comruissiofi aritl,.Staff;ge
Exhibit VV - was referenced. New Captle.took no position on the development.
, -. ,
6''qg iii general conformity with the County's
pp,,ifibally located within the Area of Urban
particular site, including topography, vegetation, water fe&ares,and
visual relntionships with suriounding lnnd uses and view sh-eds.
ly
encourage higher residential densities as well as commercial locate as
near to the County's municipalities as possible rather it6'air create small "residential
2-12-00,F**
village enclaves" in the rural parts'of the'County. It iE.intlis way that the residents can
more easily take advantage of the existing service.p.,gffereU from\those municipalities
which reduces impact to the County road system an(iila(es sEfvltes in more practical
reach of those seeking more affordable living arTangements and an increased
opportunity to take advantage of an expandklg mass transit:sorridor.
As a result, Staff finds the
Master / Comprehensive Plan
Note: The average lot size proposed is a 140'
acre lot) but the Applicant does not show lot
ity with the Town of New Castle's Master
x 75' lot (10,500 sq. ft. or a bit less than a 7a
sizes or dimensions on the proposed plat as
lnfluence as well as..bs in general"{e.q{
Plan with the exceiBtibriSrnoted above.'-
.':\
4.05.02 n is recOfui'kia mu the uniqueness of each proposal for a PIID requires that
the speeifipations, standards'and reqiiremeits for vaiious facilitiesi including
but not lirhiied to, sffeets, highways, alleys, utilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
stieet lights, parks, play-grounds, school grounds, storm drainage, water supply
and distribition, and sewage collection and treatment, mav be subieit to
mod.ification from the specffications, standards, and reqitiffiin7hffifrftiision negilafi:ons of Garfield Coiny for frke uses in other zones !!'-*:t::. .!!:{y,y:?_ 9!py::::y"i!!_.T!;-q!_ t!: !l:: {.19!,!,9, 9'.? .lY?'{d;;;";;;;fif;;;;";'p;ffi ;;;;;;;,";;;n;;;i'Zhii"i,i:ilii,ii'iiiilifxfi"i"iri"ti
dtherwise applicablg, a; reguestgd by lhe applicant. Any-waiver or mod.iftcation'speciftcations, standards and requiremeits will only be approved if {t can be
monstrated that the proposed waiver(s) is consistent with "best engineering
practicesr" as recotnmended by an engineer retained by the County.
Staff Findine
The basic modifications from the ARRD and AI zoning and subdivision regulations
requested as part of the proposed PUD include the following matrix:
6
Minimum [,ot Area
Internal Road ROW Width
well as requests a minimum lot area of 7,500 sq. ft. which is typical of an urban city lot in
the County's Residential Limited Urban Density zone district found only adjacent to
municipalities. Staff has included the specifics in the matrix above for your review.
Ultimately, Staff finds the significant differences to be building height and maximum lot
coverage. Staff suggests the Planning Commission approve the dimensions as indicted in
the RLUD zone district which requires a maximum height of 25 feet and maximum lot
coverage of 35Vo. During the Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant offered to
reduce the building height from 35' to 25' for the lots nearest the Collins property to
mitigate view issues. Staff continues to suggest that the max height in an already crowded
PUD remain at the standard 25 feet and then require that the lots nearest the Collins
4.07Pr^oPerty b_e_deed-restric_ted !g single-story structures or 20 feet as measured by the County.4.07 STANDARDS AND REO-UIREMENTS
4.07.03 The PUD shall meet tlii
demonstrate that one (I) br more"o.
solution has been otherwise achieved:(l) f!ry PUD shall have an appropriate relationship to the surrounding area,with unreasonable adveisie 'effects on the 'surrounding,,wpa'bein!with unreasonable adveisb -effects on the 'surroundingp*fupa-
minimized. T,StaffFinding ,i,s tl*.*#.*..minimized.
The original nature of the property consisted of pasture/ agriculture Unas hnO contairlb the
Colorado River forming the north property line. The surrounding area iri','w,kich;t-h&PIlD isColorado River forming the north property line. The surrounding ar"u in wBich
STANDARDS AND REOUIREME NTS
The PIID shall meet tli6 following site plan criterin unless the applicant can
demonstrate that one (1) .br mgfeA thdm is not applfuable or thdt'a practical
proposed consists of a mix of vacant, low density I large tot resiOential prope^r.fo, vacant
pasture lands to the west, and significant commercial uses aq#s.s', the Coloradddiver in the
Rippy Exemption directly north and west of the property. , ,
This PUD application proposes a high-density residenti[l r0-development which will be
highly visible from CR 335 and from I-70 and significanrly deqser than its surrounding
properties. The traffic generated from this site will placq approximately 1078 new daily
trips on County Road 335 and the developnrent of any vacant ground has the impact of
displacing unpressured wildlife that presently uses the property.
The nearest similar residential land use (in tqflts of density) is located approximately 1-
mile to the east nearer to New Castle o-n* Cft.335 ry$ich is Apple Tree and Mountain
Shadows Subdivision. (Note, the property"is aBprov"d for a subdivision for 33 units.)
Because the area of the property tg-be devel,rpeO is a former pasture which is flat and
basically devoid of mature vegetatidfi, qny development will be highly visible from CR 335
and I-70. This standard requires the Applieant to "minimize unreasonable adverse impacts
to the surrounding area".'Staff would suggBst that the main impacts from this development
include the following;,,5-'rl
r'' '.
.\'
"CDOT looked at this and no access permits were required.
(2) The PUD shall provide an ad.equate internal street circulation svstem
designed for the type of trafftc ginerated, safety, separation from hving
areas-'-convenience and access. Private internal streets may be permitted,
provided that adequate access for police and fire protectioi is niaintained.
Bicycle traffrc shall be provided tor when tfie sirte is used for residential
purposes.
StaffFindins
Theproposedinteilffiifigurationwillbasicallyusetheexistingmainroadsystem
already constructed for the existing subdivision while adding 6 stubbed cul-de-sacs to serve
the additional units. The road network does provide for two possible ingress / egress points
which is a benefit to future residents from a safety perspective. Note, th- Applicant (v1a the
flexibility in a PUD) requests a narrower road righrof-way (ROW) from 60' to 50' which
can only be granted by the BOCC. The streets are proposed to be owned and maintained by
the HOA but dedicated to the public and are not to be private. The design includes a trail
system through the development but does not propose to make any formal improvements to
the river frontage area. The Application does not propose a separated bike path for cyclists.
@) lhe PUD shall pr^ouge Common Open Sqace adequgtg in terms od location,
area and type of the Common Open Space, and in terms of the uses
permitted in the PUD. The PUD shall strive for optimum preservation of
the natural features of the teruain.
StaffFindine
The proposal provides for approximately 66Vo or almost 80 acres of the property to be
placed into open space. This standard has been met.(5) The PUD shall provide for variety in hoasing types and densities, other
facilities ani[Tommon Open Space.
StaffFindine
The proposed plan does not provide for a variety of housing types or densities. It simply
propoSes one generic lot size and one overall density. The Application states "the design of
the single-family units will include a variation of sizes and price ranges." Does this mean
the Applicant will do this? Does this mean there will be covenants that require certain lots
to have a minimum FAR?
As the Applicant is aware, varying house types include multi-family units t[rat have the
effect of providing a more affordable unit type. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is ffiBtrnique that
could partially address this issue. Staff acknowledges that no regulatory gqfofdabfe ho-using
is required because the property is located in Study Area2. However,,.r$$€ldbs not meafuthat
this standard does not apply. FAR, deed restrictions, etc., are just a fe* tecqrnlqqe*fuxdllow
for reduced house sizes that create different sizes of houses. At present, th$'stgrdard has
not been met. This is also supported by the Comprehensive Plan componehtc1 h housing
which has also not been met. Staff suggests the PUD be redeiigned to incorporate duplex
and multi-family units. h.
I
During the Planning Commission hearing, the Applicaht.eoa$Uttedlo deed restricting 6
lots at Final Plat to have a maximum of two bedrooms / bdth I two car garage to meet this
criterion. Staff finds this to be inadequate"dhfl does not adilress the issue of varying
densities within the PUD as the criterion reqqitr& As a result, this criterion has not been
sffi.
-'q
+s'- 'ts ''t1".rs.#
met.
(6) The PUD shall provide,deqilate p,vivacy between dwelling units.a.'
StaffFinding
The PUD site, plan does provide foi so,fue privacy between units by the use of the
residential pods that bACk up to open space using a cul-de-sac design; however, due to the
small lot size (avera$e'10,500 sq. ft.) there will be houses that are very close together. An
example s31 fsl.soen.by the"'design where the Applicant proposes to construct a house
between "r$,il,,t,ll" four existi I houses on the property today.
(7) The PUD shall orovide oedestrian wavs adeouate in terms of safetv.' separtfiion, convinience, ' and access 'to polnts of destinafion - aid
,,.,,,"',',r*-,ur\llJ.1=f$-;yelaess.
StatTFinditrs
-
The Applieati6il proposes sidewalks and trails throughout the development as well as a
public parklng lot with access to the Colorado River and a public fisherman's easement.
Staff su$fests, as is consistent with all other development, that these improvements be
completed as part of the obligations of the SIA and not passed on to whenever a "CO" is
issued. The sidewalks are an amenity to be valuated and enjoyed by the very first resident
in the development similar to all other public improvements such as the roads, trails, and
open space. This standard has been met.
(8) If centralized water andlor wastewater facilities are proposed within the
PUD, they shall be provided for in a separate utihty zone -district that shall
contiin its own oeiformancb standnrf,s. No land within anv utilitv zone
district shall apply toward any category of open space cilculation or
requirement. -T'lie PUD shall demonlstrale how common waler and
wastewater facilities will be controlled. or governed by the future owners
within the PUD.
Staff Finding
The developer proposes centralized water and wastewater facilities within the PUD.
Regarding the central water supply, the development proposes to serve the 104 lots with a
centralized water supply from two wells and a 150,000 gallon storage tank which is already
in place. The development has been reviewed by the Division of Water Resources which
has issued a letter stating the system is physically adequate and will not result in Material
Injury to decreed water rights so long as the Applicant maintains valid well permits. The
Applicant obtained a water contract from West Divide Water Conservancy District for the
augmentation water which was reviewed by the State Engineer.
Regarding waste water, the Applicant proposes to construct a wastewater treatment facility
(WWTF) on the property. The BOCC already reviewed the proposed system and
recommended CDPHE approve the Site Application. However, CDPHE will not approve
the system until local government (Garfield County) approve the zoning for the property.
Should the PUD be approved, Staff suggests that a condition of approval for the
Preliminary Plan be that no Final Plat shall be approved until the system has been approved
by CDPHE. Staff also points out, the MOU between the Applicant and the Town of New
Castle specifically requires that the location of the WWTF have adequate space to upgrade
the facility so that it may be able to also serve Apple Tree Mobile Home Park and nearby
development. This would require a revised Site Application to be reviewed by local
government. Both water and wastewater systems will be owned and HOA.
(g) Any disturbance of slopes in excess of 407o, shall fe my'ffihtpum
necessary to meet the development needs, with a reu_egetafion.iand
geotechnical plan submitted witfthe PUD application; (A. 97tu109):" ''geotechnical plan submitted wit[the PUD applico|.?ll (4: ,,ff{Pgq" "
'1e- fl
StaftFinding 'd::: '
The subject site to be developed is primarily flat and dops riot contain sffis in excess of
4OVo. As a result, the proposed development will not didturb dny slopes in excess of 4OVo.
Staff finds this standard is met.
(ru) Il community facilities are proposed to be contained or allowed in the
PUD, the application shall discuss who or what entitv shall be responsible
for the orolvision of and oavment for the nrooosed fticilities. The Tacilities-shall dbo be ihcludeT 'withii the bvdratt iommon infraitructure
requiremenF 9[ !!Le _ PI]D, to include water, wastewater dnd parking
reqairements. (A. 97- 109)
, ,''' ' i;'"
StaffFindineTflptii*ti"n proposes to develop a number of amenities in the PUD. Some of which are
intended to be privately owned and used exclusively by the residents of the PUD and others
are to be used by the..trqbliq. These are as follows:
Amenities for use by the PubliC:
llintentionedbutthereremainsthequestionofwhatentity
will accept thdii iledication'which would also require on-going maintenance as well as the
questid[=6f,Jiabilit] insurance. The Applicant continues to propose the County take theseu-.1itiu,.4ffiof the public. The Board will need to.p"iiR"aly discuss this issue.
'r',,1) Pribllb;,*T,,rail (along CR 335)
2)' Public'fisherman's easement (along the entire Colorado River Frontage)
3) Pu6lic Parking Area (Next to the WWTF)
Amenities for private use by the residents within the PUD:
All of these amenities shall be constructed by the Applicant and secured as par of the SIA
and owned and maintained by the HOA.
1) Basketball courts
2) Tot lot,
3) Play lball field
Otherwise, this standard has been met.
4.07.04 The maximum height of buildings may be increased above the maximum
permifred for like buildings in othbr zoie districts in relation to the followingcharacteristics of the proposed bailding:
9
(l) It's geographical location;
(L) ll1.e probable_effect on surround!ryg slopes and mountainous tetainl(3) Unreqsonable adverse visual effeit oi adjacent sites or other areds in the
immediate vicinity;(4) .Potgn(al prgblems f,or 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 spacel anil
(6) Uses withfn the proposed building.
Staff Findine
The Applicant proposes the maximum height of all buildings throughout the PUD to be 32
feet tall which is inconsistent with the underlying zone district of A/A/RD and AI.
Additionally, the Applicant does not justify the increased height as required in the above
requirement. Staff finds the height should be reduced to 25 feet to be more consistent with
al the residential heights in the surrounding area the zone districts. Staff finds that an
increase in height to 32 feet will substantially adversely affect the Collins property
immediately to the east and therefore does not meet (3) Ilnreasonable adverse visual
effect on adjacent sites or other areas in the immediate vicinity.
4.07.05 The minimum lot areas and the minimum setback restrictions
below and the maximum lot coverase tnav be increased
to like buildings in other zone distitcts td accornmodate
with unusual*orientation on the lot or relationship betiFthn b
averaging ol lot areas shall be permitte-d to-provide flexfb@ k
relate lot size to toposraphv. bit each lot sliall contaln an dccet
site. !he- clusteriig 67 ileiitopment with-useable common opei
permitted. to encoaiage provision for, and access to, common'Dpen areas and to
save street and utility cbnstruction and maintenance costs. Such clustering isalso intended to aCcommodate contemDorarv buildins tvoes which are -not
spaced individaally on their own lots bit shire commdn -si.de walls, combined
service facilities oi similnr architect-ural innovations, whether or ndt providing
for separate ownership of land and baildings. Arcliitectural style of'buildings-shall irot be a basis foi dmying approval of i fUO application. '
StaffFindine
As noted the PUD proposes to significantly inercase maximum lot coverage from l5%o to
50Vo and significantly reduce minimum lot drea'from two acres to 7,500 sq. ft. However,
again, there is no justification as required by the,.standard set forth above. Regarding the
"cluster" design, this standard envisions accommodating "contemporary building types
which are not spaced individually on their own lots but share common side walls.
combined service facilitieo or similar architectural innovations, whether or not providing
for separate ownershipof land and buildings. This standard has not been met.
4.07.06 The overall residerlti.al density shall be no greater than two (2) dwelling unitsper g{osg acre within th; PUD; proiided, however, inu the Tounty
Co;p,,9r6,1issrotlbi3 may;allow an inuedse'to a mdximum of ftfteen (15) dwellingzlits,)er.gross aori in areas where public water and seiei"systeis, owied'anZ
oLeraceu oy a n untcrpcu goverwnent or spectil atstnct @s ile.flned oy Jecflon
4.n' 32{-103(20)t C.R.S.)- are readily availnbfe and the prior zonins claisification
'aW.&-tAe( res.t{enfra! densities greqter than two (2) dwblling units per grdss acre,such densities being determined by referenci io the mhximufi lo{ coverage,
milt-irypm setback, lnaximum Jlooi aria ratio, maximui tiitaW hiisht inilparkiilg standnrds o.f such prior zoning clnisification. The ovdrall Zvera
residential dgnsity shall be -calcrylated by sumniing the number oY residenifil
g-*Wirlpal government or,specia! qjsffic( (as defined by .S^ectign
r"eiidentinl density shall be calculated by summing the number of residential
dwelling units p[anned within the bouidan of ttie PUD and div"idins bv the
tota! gross^are.a'expressed in aues within_tlr_iibi"ry4qry oJthe PrlD. Lieriging
and transfening of densities within the PUD shall bd a[lowed upon a shofiing
of conformantce to the purposes of this section throush appropiinte utilizatio-n
of the area within the PUD to achieve hish standar[s of'desilsn and livabilin.
The density of dwel]i4g urlils in any paitcular area may be-greater than tfie
rygx_tllym permittedfor a like use ii other zone district. (A. 83--93, A. 96-87, A.
e7-109)
Staff Findine
The property is approximately 121 acres in size. The current zoning of A/R/RD allows for
a density of I dwelling unit per 2 acres. The Applicant proposes 104 residential lots which
results in a density of approximately 0.86 dwelling units per acre which does not exceed
the PUD requirements and is also consistent with the Town of New Castle Master Plan of 1
acre per dwelling unit.
4.07.07 The minhnum number of acres that may comprise a PIID is two (2) acres.
StaffFindine
10
The subject property contains l2l acres which far exceeds the minimum acreage
requirement for PUDs. Staff finds this standard to be met.
4.07,08 All uses, which are permitted in the underlying zone district or consistent with
the lanit use desisnations in the Compr-eheitsive Plan, or approved as an
amendment to thetomprehensive Plan, -may be permitted in PUDs. (A. 95-043,
A. lZ-lOl1 The uses, wntn shall be pitrmiited i!, qny particular PUD shall be
those permitted by the resolution zoni,ng the particulnr area PUD.
StaffFindine
Ttr detAopment primarily proposes single-family dwellings which are uses permitted by
right in the underlying A/R/RD and AI zone district for the residential areas. The utilities
and parking zone will contain wastewater disposal plant and water facilities. The Open
Space zone will include trail, tot lot, basketball and play field uses. The uses proposed are
those in the underlying zone districts. Staff finds this standard is met.
4.07.09 Twentv-fi.ve Dercent (257o) af the total area within the boundary o[ any PUD
shalt bi devbted to Commoi Open Space. Not rnore than tweity'five percent
(25Eo) of .the Comrnon OpeLSyace- shall be an areg of water-clossified as
cotnmerctal open sDace. Of tne257o open space requirement within PUDs, no
iore than a0'% qf the 25Vi total requiied, shall be fr.mited use. open spoce, with
the balance beiig retained as one or more of 4e rgrnaintng open space
categories, listed "above. Provided, however, thA! 4e Coaryty Commissioners
mafreiuie suci riquirement if thdy ftnd thai such decrease ii_warranted by t-he
deiisn of. and the dmenities ind fidtures incorporated into thi Plan, and that
iniTieedi of tne occupants of the"PIID for Comlmon Opei Space can be met in
the proposed PUD. (4.97-109) I \, ,
Staff Findine
The PUD proposes 66 percent of the
Staff Findine
subject site to:'be dediCated open space which far
meets theexceeds the minimum 25 percent requirement. Further, it dppears the proposal
category requirements as well. Staff finds this standard to be rnet.
4.07.10 If anv zone district within the PIID is proposed to contain time-share or
fractibnil ownershio units. or other simiru':r iiterest in proper$, the provisions
lor such ownerchip' shall be those that are approued 6y the Board of County-Commissioners atihe time the propefi is zoned PUD.
ftre pUO does not propise any timeshare or fractional fee ownership for any
residential dwellings. Tlt sidential dwelling units are to be single ownership in ferTfi.E-resiAential dweliing units are to be single ownership in fee.
finds this standard tq &,met.
I the
Staff
of
4.08.05
#;fl"if,l'll Plhn app lic atio n th e follow in g info rmatio n :
.,: )t: . u- ' 1t
(1) A statekqnl of the ownership interest in the propefi to be included in the PUD and
the written coitsent of all of the owners;
J
::l
Staff Findine
ftre Applicant has represented the sole owner of the subject property Rapids Development
Corporation, The Rapids on the Colorado Homeowners Association, Gene R. Hilton and
Mary Jo Hilton Staff finds this requirement is met.
(2) A PIID Plan indicating the broad concept of the proposed development. Such Plan
shall clearly indicate :
(a) The maximum number of dwelling units proposedwithin the overall area;
StaffFindine
mt ptan proposes a total of 104 residential units on the l2l acre property. Staff finds this
requirement is met.
Were'd'Prcliminarj,1fi,lan application is included with a P_UD gpltlicgtionrlhe
Subdivision Resulilfion reqilirements will supersede the following PUD
requiremenis where the saine information or -more detailed_ iryformation is
reiuired as a oart of a subdivisionZpplication. The applicant shall include with
ihii written rygqueit fgr PUD-zo1ti1ig ythigh^does .ifit include a subdivision
11
(b) The minimum acreage which will be dedicated to Common Open Space;
StaffFindins
The Applicant proposes a total of 79 acres (667o) of the property is devoted to common
open space. Staff finds this requirement is met.
(c) The type of uses proposed and the acreage devoted to each usel
Staff Findine
Please refer to the application which details the uses and their associated acreage as
proposed in this development. The matrix below shows the general zone districts and their
associated acreages and percentage of the overall project. Staff finds this requirement is
met.
(d) Major internal circulation systemry
,,r l ,
..,,.,,,,
Staff Findine
Please refer to the application for a plan of the internal road system. [n addition, the
subsequent Sheets inqldde finer details of the street system and their adjacent lots. Staff
finds this requirement.is,met,
s\\.[tf*q1rogr, which will be dedicated.for school, sites;(e)
*,,-'lll,"
iS'"'tot proposing to dedicate land for a:provide the appropriate cash-inJieu of a
to be met.
school site at the property. The
land dedication. Staff finds this
W!;rf;#rrf:r"fffi and locati.on of commercial and industrial ases, if any, to
Staff Finding
The Applicant is not proposing any commercial or industrial uses as part of this PUD. Staff
finds this requirement is met.
@) lroylsion for water, sewer, telephone, electricity, gas and cable television, if
applicable; anll
Staff Findine
104 Residential Lots (Total area
Common Open Space
T2
Again, the Applicant proposes a centralized wastewater treatment facility to handle
wastewater. The site is presently served by a centralized potable water system, electricity,
natural gas. This standard has been met.
(!.t) .Other restrictions proposed by the applicant such as building setbacks, heightlirnits, access requirements and grade or slope restrictions to be applief to
pgrtlgulqr areas,-writtery lt the folm of a zonb district text the same'ds, or insimilnrform to, the Garfield Cointy Zoiing Resolution; and
StaffFindine
As noted earlier, the PUD proposes to amend the dimensional requirements of the
underlying zone district as follows:
Minimum l,ot Area
Internal Road ROW
width
:,,''
Also as noted earlier, the average lot size proposed is a t40! x 75' lot (10,500 sq. ft. or a bit
less than a r/a acre lot) but the Applicant does not shbw lot sizes or dimensions on the
proposed plat as well as requests a minimum lot area of 7,500 sq. ft. which is typical of an
urban city lot in the County's Residential Limifed Urban Dengity zone district found only
adjacent to municipalities. Staff has included the specifics in the matrix above for your
review. Ultimately, Staff finds the significant differences to be building height and
maximum lot coverage. Staff suggests the Planning Commission approve the dimensions
as indicted in the RLUD zone district vuhich'reqUires a maximum height of 25 feet and
maximum lot coverage of 35Vo.
(i) U more than one phase is proposed, a phasins pl.an shall 6e included in the
app[ication that deliniates the firofiosed'phdsing of the development. (A.97-109)
;iili.,
€ln,-Ii. \
rt,,l3.t
Tt* Apptfiffit?h+s to'cg-r*pplete the construction of subdivision in one phase. Note that all
improvements 1a,_9..).ttding roads, curbs, sidewalks, water system, and sewer system, public
trails,;tot lot5, eti:':,a!all"all be required to be constructed by the developer and secured in the
.$f=tt4; f rds thi*ztuquirement is met.
'rq
(3) A,
public
location map showing the relationship o.f the site to connecting roadways,
, corunerciil and cufturalfacilities ahd"surrounding land uses;
Staff Findinq:
The Lpptic"rt has provided a vicinity map showing the relationship of the site to
connecting roadways, public facilities, commercial and cultural facilities and surrounding
land uses. Staff finds this requirement is met.
(4) ! site map illustrating site boundaries, acreage, existing structures and the existing
zorung;
Staff Findine:
The Applicant has provided a site map illustrating site boundaries, acreage, existing
structures and the existing zoning. Staff finds this requirement is met.
t3
(5) A site topograplqic map showing ,at least five-foot contour intervals, major vegetation
elements, streanns, rivers, ditches and areas subjebt to 100 Yearflooding;
StaffFindins:
The Applicant has provided a site topographic map showing at least five-foot contour
intervals, major vegetation elements, streams, rivers, ditches and areas subject to 100 Year
flooding. Staff finds this requirement is met.
(6) A legal description of the areawhich the applicantwishes to include in the PUD;
StaffFindine:
The Applicant has provided a legal description of the area which the applicant wishes to
include in the PUD. Staff finds this requirement is met.
(a) An explanation of the objectives to be achieved by me f$ij. .
Staff Finding:
The Application specifies the objectives of the
has been met.
1lt\i '\' 'i: '
'
'''
\
.l
PUD in,hinder (Volume*}.)l This standard
t':
,,"r,,.,,,-,..r,rr
r rr
r,.
The Applicant proposes to complete consfitructiqn of the development within 30 months (2.5
years) of (presumably) the approvp[.of the PUD / Preliminary Plan. This needs to be
clarified because the Applicant wiij6*only;67have about 6 months to construct all
improvements as required in the SIA fe_tf*in8 final plat approval.
$il..\"'
i:jrxn::':i:ri
(q) Copies at any special covenants, conditions and restrictions, which will govern
the use ot occuuancv of the PUD: nrovided. however. that the anolicait mav
impose aafi*inal coienints, conditiohs and restrictions'on any pardiular area {n
conn&*,,..tig1t wlih the plaiting'of such area;
(b) A development schedule indicating the approximote dates when constructian
of the variois stages of the PUD can le expeZied to begin and be completedl
Staff Findine:
,\,,. -:;1,, ' .r.,,B.i'+ ,Sitt'r ., (),Pry'| tllr"'4ung: a
luant ha$'l''broviprovided a copy of draft Declaration of Covenants,Conditions and
nBbtfj"t#qr for the project. Staff finds this requirement has been met.
tu
(d) A list of the owners of properties located within two hundred, (200) feet of the
boandarie-s of the PUD anil tlieir addresses;
Stalf Findine:
Exhibit 9 in the Application contains a copy of the owners within 200 feet of the subject
property as listed in the Garfield County Assessor's Office. Staff finds this requirement to
be met.
@) A statement by a licensed engineer, with supporting calculations and
documentation, which shall provide evidence of the foltowingi (A. 97-109)
$rfr, proposed water source legally & physically adeqaate to semice the
StaffFindins
t4
Tab 14 of the Application contains a detailed water plan analysis for the provision of legal
and physical water by Wright Water Engineers, Inc (a licensed engineer in the State of
Colorado) which ultimately states that the proposed development has adequate physical and
legal water supply for full build-out of l2l units. A new analysis was not submitted for 104
units; however, Staff referred the revised plan for 104 units to the State Engineer from the
Colorado Division of Water Resources who ultimately provided a letter stating that the
proposed PUD will not cause material injury to decreed water rights and is physically
adequate to serve the project so long as valid well permits are maintained.
(ii) The proposed rnethod of sewage treatment legally and physically
adequate to service the PUD. If the PUD application iroposes tit utiliie
exis'ting, central.facilities, the dpplication srtdil contaii a'letter.from tie
districf or provi[er that adeouatb- excess caoacitv currentlv existi and will
be devotei to accornmodatin:s the develonrient.'or that thi caoacitv will be
expanded to adequately accimmodate ttie deveilopment; (A. g7-tOl)
Staff Findine
The proposed method to legal and adequately handle sewage treatment is to construct a
wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) on the property. The BOCC haslalready ieviewed
the proposed system and recommended CDPHE approve the Site Application. However,
CDPHE will not approve the system until local government (Garfield County) approved
the zoning for the property. Should the PUD be approved, Staff suggests that a possible
condition of approval for the Preliminary Plan be that no Fi4al Plat shall be.approved until
the system has been approved by CDPHE
*,. l, \_ '. ",rir:
'-t' """ l[
Staff also points out, the MOU between the Applicant a$A'the..= 6wn of New Castle
specifically requires that the location of the WWTF have, adequate space to upgrade the
facility so that it may be able to also serve-9l$.pple Tree Mobile Home Park and nearby
development. Staff
-believes
this will requireTiu revised SitU Plan which should be re-
reviewed by the BOCC and approved by CDPHE.
(iii) The proposed method
defionstratini that adi oinin
the dev elopmlent ; and (A,97. i
in'Which storm drainage will be handled,twoperty owners woudnot be damaged by
24
-: '\ ::L.lApplication.)h" Dralhage Plan was submitted as Sheet DRN in the plan set which
demonstratdK"'..,tfo,Iy drdiqage is managed throughout the property. Ultimately, the reports
state that,there''is 1lo impa$t to downstream properties and no detention is required on site.
This aiialysis hadlifoeen signed and stamped by an engineer licensed to practice in the State
Staff Findine
The Application
N\\\i
h Drainage Analysis prepared by Mountain Cross Engineering
(engineer licens@in,.Colorado)-.,which can be located under tab 16 in Volume 2 of the
S.91,-f-'h'-,..I.,i ' rhip'dtsndard has been mel
' potentiql natiral hazards in the area such as avalanche areas, fandslide
areas, flood plgin areaq, and unstable soils, and the extent and'mitigation
of such hazard.(s); (A.97-109)
Staff Findine
The Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) reviewed the project twice and the content of that
review is included here in its entirety:
As we stated in our earlier reviews, the site has relatively benign geologic hazard
conditions. The site lies on an old river terrace and packed river gravel shallowly
underlie the property, which is overlain by ftne-grained soils that lilcely thickcn
towards CR 335 and the upper slope bank. These thin mantles of fine-grained soils
that overlie the gravel may be hydro-compactive so site-specffic foundation
investigations are recommended. There are two other hazard potential areas. One
is the minor risk of shallow failures or sloughing of the slope above the site, which is
not a signfficant hazard because such a small slope failure would need to cross CRj35 before entering the development. The second is the possibility of minor debris
15
Jlow flooding from the small drainage basin (drainage basin C in the drainage
report) that exits onto CR 335 across from Paddlewheel Lane. There is a possibility
that concentrated Jlows could cross the roadway into the development. The existing
l8-inch culvert is poorly maintained and almost completely plugged off.
The revised plan shows additional lots in this vicinity, which extend farther west
than shown in the earlier plan. This will result in more exposure of potential debris
flows to those lots at the end of the cul-de-sac (of the newly proposed canoe way
100) from the next larger and steeper ephemeral drainage way above the highway,
which is drainage basin E in the drainage report.
The drainage plan shows a short berm in the landscaping west of Paddlewheel lane
that parallels the county road. This berm re-directs possible overJlows to the west,
towards the adjacent open space. That was the only grading plan we could find in
the submittal.
We believe that it would be prudent to extend that berm to wrap "ryfu the back
corner of the cul-de-sac lots so that it provides additional protection fgom-Ratential
of
the
drainage study, the drainage engineer should verify that th& hLet,hU'dibersion
berm is adequate.
In closing, our recommendations in the earlier CGS revii*, ,irfffrn vahd - site
specific foundation investigations should be ca"rp,plited'fo.{ eafft lot. Provided the
observations and recommendations stated abote''ca4ipernthg'drainage flows are
we,. have no fi)rthditt*oncern with the revised
\
noted and satisfactorily addressed,
development plan.
ffih\
:r:
(F) Easements showing vested legal aiagss fof insress and esress from a public
road to the PUD andlor documentarton tleinonstiating accesl shall be aclquired
across a public risht-of-wav or easerkwt within tio Q) vears of anv'PUD
approval'and saidZcceis sliall,be ne;tud prior to final pWrtng of dny iropenysubject to the easement acrossthe righhof:yay; (A.-97-109) antr
StaffFindine
"*s$\,.6\\.. .\,DtaII IIIlOIng i)
The property hag$irett access to CR 335 and has two formally established driveways into
the project. The Cbu1}.ttra Road dhd nridge reviewed the second proposal and commented
that '!all aco€$scs to the site have been installed for several years and meet all criteria for
drivewa;r accd*.p!3;;1,. 7t;;tri" proper signage and have been approved previously." This
standard is met. '' ;, .::. .
"q
(G).nvtlence that the PllD has been desisned with consideration of the natural
envlronment o.f the site and the sunountring area and does not itnreasonablv
deg'lroy or displace wildlife, natural vegetati1n or unique natural or historicdl
fiiltuies.
Staff Findine
Regarding impacts to wildlife and the natural environment, the Applicant did not submit a
wildlife / habitat analysis prepared by a qualified professional. The Application refers the
reader to Section II, pages 7 -9, (which do not exist) and Section III. This PUD application
proposes residential development which will be highly visible from CR 335 and from I-70
and the development of any vacant ground has the impact of displacing unpressured
wildlife that presently uses the property. The Applicant relies solely on the DOW mapping
which identifies very general wildlife use of the area. The Application state that deer and
elk presently graze on the property which also provides a route to get to the Colorado
River. This has also been testified to by the neighbors.
In order to mitigate the pressure on these animals, the Applicant proposes dog restrictions,
DOW wildlife friendly fencing requirements and weed control. Staff finds the open space
16
helps to alleviate the development footprint but suggests that a break in the lots be allowed
on the northern most line of lots to allow easier access through to the river from the center
open space area.
IV. STAFF COMMENTS FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN
The following section provides an analysis of the proposal with respect to requirements in
Section 4:00 of the Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended.
A. Water Supplv
The proposal is to modify an existing centralized water system which was put in place to
serve the existing 33 lot residential subdivision. Basically, the system consists of two wells
that provide water to a 150,000 gallon water tank which then provides water through water
mains in the internal road system. While that system was approved by the State (DWR) as
being legally and physically adequate for 33 lots, the Applicant is proposing that the same
system serve the proposed 104 units.
The Applicant has obtained an Augmentation Contract from West Dividg"&nservancy
District which was reviewed by the State Engineer to determine if there i,s a flnate_g[4lo.injury
or not. Staff received a letter from the State Engineer that there is 4p',t'n1","iifl injtqy to
decreed water rights and is physically adequate. :&s ,.,\__.*#
Resource Engineering reviewed
comments:
.a='
the revised proposal and $rftilritted
r,:1 .:L....: ,
,
The existing water system design was appraued by thq_Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). lhe potable water system will provide
water for in-house and ftre protection uses only. All iriigation will be from a non
potable irrigation systern using watCY'f1om the Mobr,eDitch. The potable water
diversions are included in a plan for q,ili. qentation decreed in Case No. W-3262.
Such decree augments out-of-priority deplbt'tg,ns during the irrigation season. The
existing water system is owned;;by,Thq''...!.dpfits on the Colorado Homeowners
Association. A letter indicating that the HAA will provide service to the proposed
104 lots is included in the t,NY1,!f,t: ,:,,, *
B. Waste Water ..,r,r ffi'
The Applicant propossi to construct a 'wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) on the
property to serve tlrp rlM units. The BOCC has already reviewed the proposed system and
recommended CHPHE apprbqg the Site Application. However, CDPHE will not approve
the system until lo@f,$gvernmdfit (Garfield County) approved the zoning for the property.
Should ttre#UD !e frpproved, Staff suggests that a possible condition of approval for the
Prelimina.ry Pla,Sfry.tbat'ngi final Plat shall be approved until the system has been approved
by CDPHE tafflhls6;points out, the MOU between the Applicant and the Town of New
Cqptle,specifically rpquires that the location of the WWTF have adequate space to upgrade
the factlity so that it may be able to also serve Apple Tree Mobile Home Park and nearby
U"*q.-*tt. This may require a revision and re-approval of the Site plan from CDPHE.
Resourc6,i,S,ngineering reviewed the proposed system and commented that the wastewater
collection and disposal for the project is proposed to be through a central system. The
Applicant has submitted a site application to the CDPHE for approval of a 45,000 gallon
per day treatment facility. The site application must be approved prior to any Final Plat
aooroval.
Several of the neighbors are very concerned as to the proposed location of the proposed
package plant as the proposed location is in the far northwest corner of the property away
from the development adjacent to their property. Please refer to the minutes attached to this
report.
As the Board is aware, pursuant to Section 4.07.03, the PuD shall meet the following site
plan criteria unless the applicant can demonstrate that one (ll or more of them is not
apolicable or that a practical solution has been otherwise achieved:
L7
(ll The PUD shall have an appropriate relationship to the surrounding area, with
unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area being minimiz.ed.
The Board has the authority to deny a PUD application if they feel the location of the
facility has an inappropriate relationship to the surroundin9 area and that the proposal has
not effectively minimized the unreasonable effects of the facility on the neighbors. In
response to this issue, the Applicant proposes a berm / screening plan that is shown here:
C. Internal Road /Access
The development has direct access to a public road with two formally established entrances
presently in place which are to be used with the subject proposal which appear to be
satisfactory to the County Road and Bridge Department.
The internal road system is a looped design providing two points of access into / out of the
development onto CR 335. The trips generated from 104 single-family dwellings are
assumed tobe 995.28 ADT using the 6th Edition of the ITE manual. This nuiliber of trips,
pursuant to Section 9:35 of the Subdivision Regulations require a "Minor..,,Qol'{pclp.6fu9esign
category which generally requires the ROW width to be 60 feet with2lUelve''hot dfiying
lanes and a chip-seal surface. The proposed road design does not sati6f61" t(is reqr$ethent
because all of the internals roads are 50 foot ROW which is defidient by'Qp"fe ri width
which reduced the actual driving lanes from 12 to 11 feet. = , *
i 'o
There is no specific provision that provides relief from this funaarh ,Vs iil as always been
interpreted to apply to the entire road system and no(1;{qduced on assryned traffic patterns.
The Board has approved reductions in width in the'oii3o.CIf, ri*F{4D where they have
authority to vary subdivision regulations ,iri:.
r\
Basically, the Applicant has revised tt".ite,l$m to show that half of the length of
Paddlewheel and Whitewater Lanes meet the 60 feet because it is assumed that only those
portions of the internal road network willgliaaqlC+ ffli traffic volume. Ultimately, this is
PUD and a variation of the road widtH$<can @ warranted if the Planning Commission
agrees with the proposed site plan. . , u #
In this case, it appears.*,.,-Etre Fire f-Ngti&ri District has agreed with the 50 foot ROW
(narrower driving surfde). Staff finds thb more niurow width can have a traffic calming
affect as well as6c$aqe'the impervious space thereby reducing drainage flows. This
assumes the surfffi is"bt least,q.cfrip / seal surface.\ .'
Resource Eid$.peering, on betratf of the County, provided the following comments:
i-l
#-*WrWop .b#,ba itilUaivision will generate 1,078 average daily trips (ADT). This
rdqa-ifu*,,,! "tfiain loop road to be designed as a minor collector. (We disagree with
't: . Kimtbg.HoM's prorata lot count analysis for downsizing the design.) A minor
cotlapt}s road has a 60 foot right-of-way, 12 foot lanes, and minimum 4 foot
shoilder. The existing loop roadias i t Toot lanei, a 2 foot curb and gutter, a 4-foot
sidiiwalk, and a proposed 50 foot right-of-way except for 450 feet at the county road
entrance which has a 60 foot right-of-way. The PUD text should indicate that the
request is for the above noted road section such that a variance to the County
Standard can be approvedfor the Preliminary Plan design.
The trffic study does not address the fact that County Road 335 is in poor condition
in several areas and in need of improvement for existing trffic. However this
project is in a designated road impact fee area and the presumption is that the fee
was based on the need to improve the road.
The recommended formula for the road impact fee is based on the theoretical
calculationfor the project taking into account the existing project. This translates to
one-half of the road impact fee for 7l lots at ftnal plat and one half of the road
impactfee at building permitfor gfiremaining un-built lots.
D. External Road Impacts
18
The Application contains a traffic study prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates which is
intended to examine the traffic impacts from this development. The analysis states the total
trips generated will be t0.25 ADT for each of the 104 dwelling units for a total of 1066
trips per day with the peak AM resulting in 82 trips and the peak PM of 111 trips directly
on to CR 335.
During the hearing with the Planning Commission, the main issues were 1) the general
increase in traffic on CR 335,2) whether or not a Highway Access Permit is required from
CDOT for these trips as they impact I-70, and 3) the ability of the present condition of CR
335 to handle this increased traffic. (Please refer to the minutes for this discussion.)
As a result of that discussion, the Applicant commissioned a revised traffic analysis
prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates which is included in Binder Volume 3.
Ultimately, the analysis points out that the 104 units will not exceed the 20Vo threshold at
the I-70 intersection with CR 335 either with or without the background traffic generated
by the apartments currently being built east and south of the interchange. {DOT was
forwarded the revised traffic study in the Application and provided 4g'ff8,'rfollowingcomments: _+)\,
Iit***r*,] *..q
'b" t n##
Based upon the trffic analysis conducted by Kimley Horn $diid."Oiffirir"6'tplbbO , it
doesn't appear to impact I-70 New Castle Interchange by-,,yporg then 20\#lfherefore,
no access permitting wilt be required' .::", ,. ."1{,
'&1
-[
However, this will continue to add more delay ong,p the Inlergrtan$,e in New Castle. As
the analysis indicates that the level of service in cbrtain iimei at the New Castle
Interchange will be function at low levels of service'at peak times. I would suggest
County and City start placing this on the'\O,pear transportation plan and get this issue
documented in the transportation plannin6r,,@ion. This will become an issue in the
future. .$ *i""
$s'",r"\', M
The Kimley-Horn analysis aia ,""omr'11';*Hthe I-70 westbound off ramp as well
as the intersection at CR335 and the rohd,thaf"crosses the interstate. Those improvements
are included in their **,y,e,l: but would ne# to be done by CDOT.
,!;,;.
,,, . .
Regarding traffic qn qR 33tr, the traffic study (p. 2l) states that "acceptable roadway level
of service will result'along CR;35 in 2008 with or without the added traffic from the
Rapids Developm-nt. f'urttrer, in their conclusions, the traffic study states "the proposed
developme6t\:\fi/ill not cause impact to the existing roadway network." [This study
recommcnds that L@S "D" is acceptable LOS for these roads. See p. l7.l
The ABplicant sh{t be}equired to pay a road impact fee for 7l of the 104 lots because fees
hav.e alrBqd#,,hepn-ipuid for the existing 33 lots. These fees are required to be spent in that
Distriit 3. hQose es would approximately be $226 per ADT. In this case, that is roughly
$1641471.50. ose monies are then required to be spent in accordance with the terms of
the Countf's Capital Improvements Plan to partially mitigate impacts from this
development.
The Applicant stated they have already paid $118,206 in traffic impact improvements
(which basically consisted of the two deceleration lanes adjacent to the project) at the time
the 33 lot subdivision was approved.
The Applicant disagrees and prefers to only pay $14,400.
E. Soils/Geologv
The Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) reviewed the project twice and the content of that
review is included here in its entirety:
As we stated in our earlier reviews, the site has relatively benign geologic hazard
conditions. The site lies on an old river terrace and packed river gravel shallowly
underlie the property, which is overlain by fine-grained soils that likely thicken
t9
towards CR 335 and the upper slope bank. These thin mantles of fine-grained soils
that overlie the gravel may be hydro-compactive so site-specffic foundation
investigations are recommended. There are two other hazard potential areas. One
is the minor risk of shallow failures or sloughing of the slope above the site, which is
not a significant hazard because such a small slope failure would need to cross CR
335 before entering the development. The second is the possibility of minor debris
Jlow flooding from the small drainage basin (drainage basin C in the drainage
report) that exits onto CR 335 across from Paddlewheel Lane. There is a possibility
that concentrated Jlows could cross the roadway into the development. The existing
l8-inch culvert is poorly maintained and almost completely plugged off.
The revised plan shows additional lots in this vicinity, which extend farther west
than shown in the earlier plan. This will result in more exposure of potential debris
flows to those lots at the end of the cul-de-sac (of the newly proposed Canoe Way
100) from the next larger and steeper ephemeral drainage way above the highway,
which is drainage basin E in the drainage report.
corner of the cul-de-sac lots so that it provides aM,itfb4al ph4uectidh from potentinl
hyper concentrated or bulked storm flows thel,mayr,,ow,llet pom the channel of
drainage basin E. Since it doesn't appear that aif"'d.eh.rii"'b*,tktng was used in the
drainage study, the drainage engineer should verify'tfiai=ihe height of the diversion
berm is adequate.
In closing, our recommendations in k; ,,)',itir-, CGS reviews remain valid - site
specific foundation investigations $hould be cdmpleted for each lot. Provided the
observations and recommendatidiiis stated above concerning drainage Jlows are
noted and satisfactorily addressed, we have no further concern with the revised
development plan.
Resource Engineerin g,gibahatf of the County, provided the following comments:
..a,,.,.%'r4,.
irr\,
Site cons tt'iar"ihtrp,,jn the 1980 Lincoln-Devore Study include debris flow
potential, debris fans, hi,kh ground water, and soils which are subject to dffirential
rcoyar*)Pnr when loaded or wetted. The old 1980 report does not map'the hazard
Thi gradirtg'"and drainage plan has been modffied to provide for mitigation
fi'#w hb*ards. Based on the hazards present, we recommend that a plat note
The Appfidant has revised the grading / drainage plan to address extending the berm
proposed'by CGS and Resource Engineering in their comments above. That is shown here:
Drainage
The Application contains a Drainage Analysis prepared by Mountain Cross Engineering
which can be located under tab 16 in Volume 2 of the Application. Additionally, the
Drainage Plan was submitted as Sheet DRN in the plan set which demonstrates how
drainage is managed throughout the property. Ultimately, the reports state that there is no
impact to downstream properties and no detention is required on site. This analysis has
been signed and stamped by an engineer licensed to practice in the State of Colorado. This
standard has been met.
Resource Engineering reviewed the Drainage Plan on behalf of the County and provided
the following comments:
The drainage study and analysis is consistent with standard practices and meets
GARCO criteria. The drainage plan provides for conveyance of storm water
through the property and management of water to address water quality impacts
4.G€gs'
Ndaa
20
from development activities. The plan generally routes off site drainage around the
lots with surface drainage structures or into the control pond and out to the river
open space in a pipe. The discharge of all drainage systems is to grass lined swales
prior to discharge to the river.
F. Development proposed within the L00-vear floodplain
It appears that a portion of the property falls within the regulated 100-year floodplain as is
delineated on the site plan. It appears that portions of the public trail are located within the
100-year floodplain. The Applicant shall submit an application for a Floodplain Permit to
be reviewed by the BOCC in conjunction with the PUD and Preliminary Plan. Staff
suggests that no hearing be scheduled until this application has been submitted. Resource
Engineering reviewed the Site Plan on behalf of the County and provided the following
comments:
The river frontage lots are within the Jlood fringe area of the floodplain boundary.
This lot area was the subject of a Floodplain Special Use Permit for_the original
subdivision. The area was filled to raise the lot area above the 100 Sli;f*,base Jlood
elevation. As a result, the proposed lots are shown to be outside of fu9_.{rg,,p$,.plain.
Portions of proposed l,ots I through 7, 10 through 18 and the wastewatiY'tredffrcnt
plant site aie within the ftoodplaii boundary, but elevated qk|ie llte 100 ffi.r,Sase
Jlood elevation. It is recommended that a new administro{ltp F,loodplain"Peimit be
obtained for this project due to the above and due to\"pptmit conditibns which
conJlict with the new project and our review recommindatiofi,s ,o{ the proposed
project. Clean up of the floodplain permit,ti, iiilues is, a iVlatively simple
administrative procedure and should be compfu,g...l lrigl to the BOCC hearing.
=;,.G. Fire Protection 'u, , 'c/3,
The property is located in the Burning Mountain Fire Protectiefr District. The development
proposes to be able to use the existing ssntral,.iwater system which includes a 150,000
gallon storage tank, and a plan set that shows fire hydrants. The District submitted a letter
dated August 2,2006 which reflects a review of the original site design and does not reflect
a review of the redesign. In the original retiew,,the District stated that street widths (which
are the same in the new plan) were adesuato so long as no on street parking was allowed
and posted as such; water storage was adCIquate particularly if the pond can be used with a
dry hydrant system; hydtant spacing is adequate barring any unusual building envelopes;
and fire hydrant denpllies=",could be reduced if all new residences are required to be
sprinkled. 'i
It appears that the District has agreed with the fire protection measures. The District did
raise the quO$tion as to how the pond and water tank were to be managed so that they were
slwaysffiso ffi,the maximum amount of water would be available in the event there was
atire.&,,.11;
-*j,u*
' '
rL wildtifb
Re$arding imp$cts to wildlife and the natural environment, the Applicant did not submit a
wildlife/ hhbitat analysis prepared by a qualified professional. The Application refers the
reader tolSection II, pages 7 -9, (which do not exist) and Section III. This PUD application
proposes residential development which will be highly visible from CR 335 and from I-70
una tn" development of any vacant ground has the impact of displacing unpressured
wildlife that presently uses the property. The Applicant relies solely on the DOW mapping
which identifies very general wildlife use of the area. The Application state that deer and
elk presently graze on the property which also provides a route to get to the Colorado
River. This has also been testified to by the neighbors.
In order to mitigate the pressure on these animals, the Applicant proposes dog restrictions,
DOW wildlife friendly fencing requirements and weed control. Staff finds the open space
helps to alleviate the development footprint but suggests that a break in the lots be allowed
on the northern most line of lots to allow easier access through to the river from the center
open space area.
I. Vegetation Manasement
2t
Staff refemed the revised Application to the County Vegetation Manager who provided the
following comments:
1) Regarding Noxious Weeds
a. The applicant needs to map and inventory the property for Garfield County
listed noxious weeds.
In Mr. Leavenworth's letter to you dated October 9, 2006, he states in ltem #12,
regarding the County's prior request for a weed map and inventory, that "it is
impractical in that the weeds move from place to place and speciftc rnapping
while possible would be rendered obsolete as soon as it was produced".
Weed mapping and inventory has been proven over time to be one of the most
useful components of a weed management program. A landowner rnust lcnow
what is out there if they want to manage their land successfully. Many of the
County's listed noxious weeds are n"rennials and do show u. in,thL'.same place
rear after tear.
.*i,,nttl ', , '::,,..i"
b. Implement a weed management plan based on the we$l'il ihventory. '"The weed
tnanagement plan shall be in effect prior to the,, denel.oprfient df i.hb proiect.
County listed weeds present in the area include white top;rbq,ydock, Russian
knapweed, Russian olive, tamarisk, and comffton burdock. Thetproperty has at
least nine Russian olive trees within the propobe,.4,i open space area along the
Colorado River, these need to be mapped, i,hiigntQyigd, cat, and treated. There
are also some young tamarisk trees around the'ilbnd and they need to be
mapped, inventoried, cut, and treatid" '
_""'
Mn l*avenworth also states that 'tseveral plat notes have been added to the
preliminary plan indicating , Weed ' mant),gement and soil storage during
construction". I have been uhable to locate these comments in the submittal.
2) Covenants
In the amendment.la the covenants,.the Applicant addresses mosquitoes and noxious
weeds. 4 r
::
Mosquitoes,nre'addre{ryd,in Section 14.6. It states that "the owner of each lot shall
use their bitt bfforts to,,c:introl the mosquito population with(in) the Subdivision,
whiclfBhall include, without limitation, the prevention of standing pools of stagnant
ffig "" the to!"
,,,,,,,....,Sft@6.4f.fuPnds that the applicant provide more detail beyond "best efforts".
. Als,o;\fu,e affftlicant needs to specifically address the issue of mosquito management
"'',.. on lke "ffbnd located in the subdivision. Please identify the parg responsible for
takintg care of mosquito issues on the pond.
3)
4)
Weeds are addressed in Section 14.7 and again detail is lacking in the covenants
regarding responsibility of noxious weed management on common areas such as
roadsides, open spaces, and park areas.
Revegetation
The applicant has not provided a revegetation plan or a plant materials list forreview. Please quantify the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and
subsequently reseed.ed on road cut and. utihty disturbances. This infonnation will
help determine the arnount of security that will held for revegetation. These will
be areas outside of the building envelopes. As is always required, 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:
1) provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil, 2) a timetable for eliminating topsoil
22
and/or aggregate piles, 3) and a plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances
or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more.
5) Proliferation o.f tumbleweeds
Complaints from adjacent landowners to new subdivisions have increased in the last
two years regarding the issue of nuisance weeds such as kochia and Russian thistle.
These plants are opportunistic to bare soil and later become tumbleweeds.
Typically we have seen them in areas in new subdivisions where the soil has been
left disturbed and revegetation has not occumed. Kochia and Russian thistle are
not County listed noxious weeds so are not subject to noxious weed enforcement
regulations per the Garfield County Weed Management Plan and the State Noxious
Weed Act. Staff requests that the Planning and 7-oning Commission and the Board
of County Commissioners consider making a request of the Applicant to address
management of Kochia and Russian thistle along disturbed areas and roadsides
within the subdivision.
In response to the points mentioned above, the Applicant submitted an "Integrated
Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Program" prepared by Zoran Illievski, a
biologist qualified to prepare
following comments;
the plan. The County reviewed the Plan and providdd the
J. Assessment/ Fees "l)t"*:
'
',,,,
The property is located in the RE-2 School District which requifes $200'p,pr.,.qnit be paid as
a cash-in-lieu of School I Land Dedication Fee. In this c,a$e, it appears thst.the existing 33
lots already paid this fee as a condition of approval lip$solution 96-70; as a result, the
Applicant is responsible for paying the fee for 71 units oi,,$l4,200 at the time of final plat.
Thii obligation itratt Ue -"*oi aliiedin the SIA. i
As mentioned earlier, the property is located in Road Impact Study Area 3 which requires
$226 per ADT generated out of the development to be spent on road improvements in that
District. When the BOCC approved the'bxisting Ripids Subdivision for 33 lots, they
required the following plat note on th*e Final Platl,,
,lli :
t::.7. Upon adoption of road irnpact,fees by the BOCC, the lots created by this
exemption (meant,,))subdivision") shall be subject to paying the fees, paid at the time
of building perurlt ^application, unLess said fees have been paid by the developer.
There shall be a ctedit given to the Building Permit Applicant in the amount of
$3,582.00, pir lbt agalng ;aid road impact fees for the monetary arnount spent on
,-rY({...rfr ? reQuired aeeileration and de celeration lane s.
According to the App',licant's attorney, the developer constructed the accel I decel lanes at a
cost of $118,206.80. Gunsistent with the plat note above, the County would not collect a
fgdfip, knpaet Feb"rsfrom Building Permit Applicants for the existing 33 lots because the
d&.yelopO.;pt thosd improvements in to mitigate the traffic impact.
Nolbr,the\evoloper is asking the County to approve 71 additional lots which requires a
traffic'1fi-l#ht fee of $180,620.00 in order to satisfy the County's Traffic Study Area Impact
Fee. Horffiver, the developer wants to only pay $14,400.00 rather than $180,620.00 for the
additional 71 lots. As a result, the developer is asking the BOCC to reduce the
development's obligation by 166,220.00 even though he wants to increase the lots from 33
to 104. [Note, if the total 104 lots were to be calculated today, the fee would be
approximately $264,571.00.1 Additionally, the improvements the developer made to CR
335 directly benefited that development and did not address any other condition on CR 335
exacerbated by the developments additional traffic impact.
Staff strongly recommends the BOCC consistently apply the same Traffic Impact Fee
regulations to this development as it has to all other developments in the County and not
make an exception for the developer when he is asking for a 2l5Vo increase in density but a
l,l507o decrease in obligated impact fees.
V. Development in the 100-Year Floodplain Review
A portion of the property (primarily along the Colorado River) is located in the 100-year
floodplain. Integral to the original 33 lot Subdivision, the BOCC also approved a
Floodplain Special Use Permit for the lots that were located within the flood-fringe of the
floodplain.
Since this proposed application represents an entirely new site plan, the Applicant is
required to re-address the floodplain issues on the property which is generally reviewed by
the County in an administrative review for development in the flood-fringe. Resource
Engineering (on behalf of the County) reviewed the Administrative Floodplain Permit
submitted by the Applicant and provided the following comments:
The new application seeks approval of the previously approved ftll within the Flood Fringe
District of the Colorado River 100 year Floodplain as deftned by ffictive mapping
prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in' cooperation with the Colorado Water
Conservation Board dated December 1982. We recommend approval of the Floodplain
Development Permit for Rapids Development Corporation for the proposed Rapids on the
Colorado P.U.D. with the following conditions.
1. The 100 year floodplain boundary line and the Jloodway line should be shown on
the appropriate subdivision maps consistent with the effective 1982 Flood Pldin S1udy.
2. The area within the Flood Fringe District that was filled to gq'ileuation at or above
the 100 year Base Flood elevation should be identffied on the sryile.iiwbdivision ylaps that
depict the floodplain boundary :.;;. ,.. \,.,r,3. A plat note should be included on any ftnal plat oflthe'Colorado on.,ithe Rapids PUD
that states the specffic lot number building areas ory,v,,,97vCIlapes which have been filled,
references the Jloodplain development permit number, artd,indi,Cates'that construction on
these lots must conform with the GARCO Floodplain'Regulafions and the approved
Permits' nr,,, ;llt'
4. A plat note should be included that iniljcate*,the minimum finished floor elevation
for each lot within the floodfringe area.******* Fred referred tO thiS ***{.*{.{<
VI. General Discussion Point Summary
The Planning Commission has recommended approval with conditions (shown at the end
of this memo); however, there are still significant issues that need the BOCC's direct
attention so that the BOCC can make a deCision based on findings of fact which include the
following:
d',, ,i
1,.L1\,..
1) Is the PUD in'$e.$ al con irmity Comprehensive Plan of 2000 & the Town of New
Castle Wfilt*1r;I-Plaft''and does the BOCC wish to incorporate the suggested points made
bv the Town of,New Castle in their letter dated 7t17t07?
T
2),,r- Arethe,:.iollotifug dimensional changes to the dimensional standards acceptable to the
#qJOUC?,
''% riU BUilding Height 32 feet
'"',,,,,g*$ Max toi covlrage Sovo
t$. Min Lot size 7,500 sq. ft.
d. Front / Rear Setback 10 feet
e. Side Setback 5 feet
f. Internal Road Width 50 feet
g. Average Density 116 acldu (104 lots on l2l acres)
3) Does the PUD Plan provide for a variety of housing types and densities?
4) Does the PUD have an appropriate relationship to the surrounding arca with the
unreasonable adverse impacts being minimized?
a. Reduce building heights nearest the Collin's property?
b. Relocation or mitigation of the wastewater treatment facility or is the
berming / landscaplng plan adequate?
5) How does the BOCC wish to deal with the proposed public amenities including the
public trail, parking lot, and fisherman's easement?
24
6) Does the proposed design meet the intent of clustering to be consistent with the Town
of New Castle's Comprehensive Plan?
7) Does the Board wish to accept the proposed comments of the Town of New Castle?
a. Increase in size I capacity for the WWTF
b. Spending Impact Fee Dollars
8) Have the Applicant submit a wildlife study prepared by a qualified professional in order
to adequately analyze the wildlife impacts? Additionally, should the plan be redesigned
to allow for an open space break in the northern line of lots to allow for wildlife
passage?
9) Do the findings in the revised Traffic Study satisfy the BOCC as to traffic impacts to
CR 335?
10) Does the BOCC wish to vary from its regulations regarding how the traffic impact fee
is collected resulting in the following difference: :,j:,:ii
a. Original Development (33lots)
b. Proposed Development (104lots)
11) Staff recommends the BOCC require the
floodplain:
a. The 100 year floodplain boundary line and the floodW'hf line should be shown on
the appropriate subdivision maps cdhcistent with tfiBr'effective 1982 Flood Plain
Study.
B, .Y,,,
b. The area within the Flood Frinle Distr[ct ttrrat was filled to an elevation at or
above the 100 year Base Floo{ elevaiion should be identified on the same
subdivision maps that depiet thq floodplain boundary.
^#c. A plat note sho*.uld be include{ gpfany final plat of the Colorado on the Rapids
PUD that statB$ iho specific lot'humber building areas or envelopes which have
been fille@,ibferences the floodplain development permit number, and indicates
that cod$truCtibn on these lots must conform with the GARCO Floodplain
.;fiI1i@# the $ioved Permits'
d,,-4 p1ab".46,.ffi should be included that indicates the minimum finished floor elevation
= fof+acfliflot dlthin the flood fringe area.
#$$\\ ' ,:i:' '')!.),.f
tffi;,Staff,stronglyftcommends the BOCC consistently apply the same Traffic Impact Fee
heigulatLon-;to this development as it has to all other developments in the County and
no&,p1$e an exception for the developer when he is asking for a 2I57o increase in
densit) but a 1,150Vo decrease in obligated impact fees.
VII. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended the BOCC approve the rezoning of the property
from AI and ARRD to PUD with the following conditions:
1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public
hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners,
shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County
Commissioners.
2. The Applicant shall be allowed to reduce the Garfield County Street and Roadway
design standards in designing the internal road network to the Secondary Access design
requirements found in Section 9:35 of the Subdivision Regulations and as shown on the
PUD map and Preliminary Plan.
316 ADT
,,.,ff$['-t,8'206 ", ".'.,":'
1078 ADT $14,400I
J.],
followlng items regardid[ the 100-year
' tt, 'i: ::.
J- tr
25
3.
4.
The road right-of-ways shall be no less than 50 feet in width throughout the subdivision
with on-street parking prohibited. The Applicant shall prepare covenants that contain
strong language to enforce such a prohibition which also includes an aggressive signage
program.
In addition to other required conditions of approval, the Applicant shall include the
following plat notes on the Final Plat:
a) Colorado is a "Right-to-Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq.
Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities,
sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a
normal and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character
and a healthy ranching sector. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor,
lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on
public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or
otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides,
any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a 169*h-and non-
negligent agricultural operations. &. * * ,, *6fu '\V.L!il,rv7'ri:1
i{ts L
(tl''
"r.c) All exterior lighting will be the mihimufu amount necessary and all exterior
lighting will be directed inward, towdrdg tlld'interior of the subdivision, except
that provisions may be made to allow fof -safety lighting that goes beyond the
property boundaries. ,
d) Individual site. specific gebteclifiicat investigations and foundation design
prepared by engineer licensed to practice in the State of Colorado shall be
submittedr,,*ittr ttre building permit application for all development on the
Rapids 6n tle Colorado Planned Unit Development
e) NU%l) dog,shall be allowed for each residential unit within a subdivision; and
,,r,,*F" dq..,g,$all b,b',iequired to be confined within the owner's property boundaries.
,1fiI" fte f@uir&hent shall be included in the protective covenants for the
'\,a;dhdiViSl"p r, with enforcement provisions allowing for the removal of a dog
',,..fhm tfiSsubdivision as a final remedy in worst cases.
., :n$
26
5.
6.
7.
0 No open hearth, solid-fuel fireplaces are allowed anywhere within a subdivision.
One (1) new solid-fuel burning stove, as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-40I,et.seq., and
the regulations promulgated thereunder, shall be allowed in any dwelling unit. All
dwelling units shall be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning
stoves and appliances.
g) No further subdivision of a recorded subdivision shall be allowed, except where it
is provided for in an approved Preliminary Plan.
h) All streets are dedicated to the public but all streets will be constructed to
standards consistent with these Regulations and repair and maintenance shall be
the responsibility of the incorporated Homeowners Association of the subdivision.
The Applicant shall include a plat note and language in the protective covenants that restrict
the six nearest lots to the property owned by Ken Collins to no higher than 25 feet as
measured by the County ZoningResolution of 1978, as amended. -i"',,
The Applicant shall depict the 100-year flood way and the 100-year flbbd fringe folowing
items on the Final Plat.
. ril , ,:1
The Applicant shall construct all the public improvements which intlude sidewalks, etc. and
;a:' : I
which shall be included in the SIA. t: ,_,. '',,i...,,
l2.The Applicant shall restrict surface use activities related to oil and gas drilling operations to
the portion of the property that is located south of County Road 335. There shall be no
surface disturbance from these activities on the portion of the property north of CR 335.
13. Prior to or as part of the approval for Final Plat, the Applicant shall obtain approval from the
Board of County Commissioners to properly vacate the existing plat for the Rapids
Subdivision.
14. The Applicant shall specify 6 lots, at the time of Final Plat, for houses that shall be
constructed to have a maximum of two-bedrooms, two baths, and two car garages.
15. The Applicant shall present an acceptable method to the Board of County Commissioners
that preserves the use of the internal trails, small parking area containing 16 spaces, and
fisherman's easement for public use.
8. No Final Plat shall be approved until the Site Appliqation ,for the wastewater treatment
facility has been approved by the Colorado Department of Public tlealth and Environment
(CDPHE) and a letter of that approval has been submitted to the County as part of the Final
Plat submittal. ///'%
9. Perimeter fencing shall be discouraged arounfl thd"b.,oundaries of the entire development so
that large game can access the river for,w6ter, $,hbuld fencing be desired, it shall be
constructed according to standards approved by the Division of Wildlife. The Applicant shall
provide said wildlife friendly tenc.f.nE designs within the protective covenants. Due to the
limited amount of mature I dead'vegetation in the Colorado riparian corridor along the
northern property boundary, it shall be,Ieft untouched so that it can continue to serve as
important raptor perch habitat for hunting in the river.
10. The property is lObated in the,RE-2 School District which requires $200 per unit be paid as a
cash-in-lieu of School / Land.Dedication Fee. In this case, it appears that if the existing 33
lots alreadffi*ifl this fee, the Applicant is only responsible for paying the fee for 7l units or
$14,ffi4=.e. U*I,fl" "r$nal plat. This obligation shall be memorialized in the SIA.
11. The AdFliehnf shfutr'be required to pay a road impact fee for 7l of the 104 lots because fees
fiave alredby-, Ueeii paid for the existing 33 lots. Those fees would approximately be $226 per
AbT. In this.F6se, that is roughly $164,471.50. Those monies are then required to be spent in
accordanc* with the terms of the County's Capital Improvements Plan. This obligation shall
be mem6rialized in the SIA.
27
16. The Applicant shall prepare a budget that provides the expected operational expenses and
revenues of the HOA to be submitted to the BOCC.
17. The Applicant shall prepare a berming / landscaping plan effectively screens the waste water
treatment plant from the neighbors to the west. This shall be prepared prior to the hearing
with the BOCC.
:F*{.**** time 2:33
[,ee [ravenworth and Karl Hanlon presented for the applicant.
Karl Hanlon discussed the planning Commission recommendations.
Apple Tree to the right so you can get a feel for the aerial photograph and what's going on out
there - large focus view.
History -Early on this was a proposed 319 unit PUD; curent approval is for 33 units. In 2005
reduced to l2l units and current 2007 is for 104 units Woods Landing in the 80's and the 2005
site plan and the current WWTF site plant.
Itre vicinity map of the property was shown in several photos as well as the Woode Landing and
current approval for the 33 lots. The illustrative plan for the 104 lots with vegetatign drawn in
was shown. The Parking area where the public access going to the river was pointed out,as well
as the private access ani applicant stated that New Castle was interested in the amenities. Karl
addressed the zone district change first. He listed the existing Rapid.s''subdivision improvements
consisting of a public water system, paved roads with access to,,CR 335, naturali'gas installed,
telephone service installed, electricity and transformers, wirelesi internet Service and cell phone
service.
The zone district map shows five to ten lot clusters w,ilh 66Te"tp.n ipu"e. The power point
presentation illustrated the site plan, the proposed land,,use distiicts; and the zone district
amendment request illustrating a .86 single family units per aqre;'Colorado River frontage and
the open space and how this was planned. ""' ,
Karl stated that the general welfare of the commriai,py is better utilized to provide additional
diverse housing types needed for the growth in Gameld County. Additionally, the WWTF will
improve water quaiity by eliminating 33 septic'syslaqr1g-,i''
The site plan includes cluster design and accomplishes id*y of the Comprehensive Plan of 2000
with open space, housing, trails, transpdftation,'agriculture, water and sewer service. Karl added
that the Town of New Castle did not'take a position regarding it's application at the July 17,
2007 meeting but they did provide some suggested conditions if the Board approves. New Castle
presented the question
August 9,2W6 - heari$g''before P &Z- desire to reduce the density, reviewed PUD to P &Zin
January. .,"
Zone district amendmeut frst -2:37-00
-u
This is to.,g641gndQ'2#i9 acrc property and adjacent property of 24.218 acres from AI to ARRD
to PUD.@ q rr-'
Thisj*-lpubh,rltke,*h&@lue Creek plan - existing zoning - a portion is zoned AI and ARRD -
im@rtant qhdr\"wffilk about height. Why PUD - Rapids is better utilized. Explained - rising
prices'\nd vdft.ieili," bts - lot price and housing costs. County does not require Affordable Housing
or restrictb$ t6using.
LOVA trai6$'- public amenities can provide access to the river. Increases open space 66Vo of the
development.
PUD Design benefits:
Flexibility of PUD design and provide for more moderate income housing types and I-70
corridor and Colorado River quality by replacing the ISDS.
Conforms with New Castle Comp plan.
Suggested conditions by New Castle.
Urban Services - central water system and the current plan replaces the 33 ISDS systems with a
centralized waste water treatment, Similar to Blue Creek - reserves space to expand for other
lots. New Castle asked if they could provide wastewater now to other areas. No.
This was an open field - are there better open spaces - more consistent with - New Castle was
interested in preserving open space.
These concerns as expressed in Fred's staff report were addressed.
Ge4eral Discussion Point Summarv
28
Does the PUD Plan provide for a variety of housing types and densities?
Applicant - mixed uses with 2 bedrooms, 2 bath - single family and add a different type of
housing at a more affordable price. Neighbors are wanting to maintain the single family dwelling
types.
Does the PUD have an appropriate relationship to the suroundingarea with the unreasonable
adverse impacts being minimized?
Karl said they will reduce building heights nearest the Collin's property. Feels the relocation or
mitigation of the wastewater treatment facility will be to plant 3 large ash trees.
Time 2:46 ****:F
How does the BOCC wish to deal with the proposed public amenities including the public trail,
parking lot, and fisherman's easement?
PUD proposed zoning criteria - this will be determined at final plat if the Board does not wish to
accept responsibility.
Does the proposed design meet the intent of clustering to be consistent yith ttrJ'T8*n pf N"*
Castle's Comprehensive Plan? ,,,,,.,. " ,,::.,,, ,, ,,, , ..'i'
3600 sq feet of lot coverage and how they arrived at the 5OVo lot-r,qnbrug",
i'i:
Building heights - current construction - reason for heights -,:used,10 foot ceilings. In the AI
district, it would be and limit the properties closest to the. Collins property.,:to the (25 feet?) -
listen {<{<**
Density is increased and the Rippy' commercial property along.':the Highway. Protecting the
hillside and open space and access to the river. "t"t'
Traffic - CDOT access permit was not needed; Curtir lto*e, with Kimberly Horn will speak.
Curtis Rowe- time :r{<'r* 2:5O - found the development will not cause an impact - less than20Vo
increase in traffic. Scope for traffic stud! was to det€rmine on CR 335 and an access permit - no
and we were not required to study the I-70 fq.ppp and did and found the westbound ramp would
benefit I-70. Eastbound ramp at New Castle #ould benefit for an all way stop control. Stop signs
should be placed on apprqa(hes to Paddle Wheel and White Water.
Karl Hanlon -W tiln9 *** 2'53
:
Does the Board'iilip[to eeqqlttrg proposed comments of the Town of New Castle?
.:..,,,,... ar thereasbih size I capacity for the WWTF
,ilt',,, '"'1,,O. ' Spending Impact Fee Dollars
Kar$\addrdssed ; a d0monstrated need and permits them to meet their goals of more open space
*o u"@,,rrl,.lolhe river
One thing G.''iet back from residences. Options - berm or landscape thru facility and final site
application and other option is a covered facility - Copper Mountain facility was used as an
example.
Have the Applicant submit a wildlife study prepared by a qualified professional in order to
adequately analyze the wildlife impacts? Additionally, should the plan be redesigned to allow for
an open space break in the northern line of lots to allow for wildlife passage?
Karl - time - *** 2'56 - covenants provide for dog control; wildlife passage to the Colorado
River between houses, at breaks between clusters and around the WWTF. Agreement with DOW
for 319 units was recognized.
Critical range maps for elk and deer - they do not fall in either of these categories.
Public amenities - River access, trails, Tot Lot, Basketball Court and lnternal Open Space.
29
Proposed the public have access to these open spaces. Indemnifying the County on trail
acceptance and feel like this will come up more and more by the citizens - consider the public
easement and be assured these public amenities would be insured against indemnification.
Additional on the zone district amendment - CDWR has issued permits for the existing two
wells and subdivision is better utilized with housing types and open space.
Water is provided for, compliance with design, traffic Kimley Horn - Fire protection issues were
dealt with - soil and slope hazard, drainage issues have been made, floodplain - (hasn't been
issued yet) and plat notes on floodplain issues - vegetation management and inserted in the plat
notes.
Do the findings in the revised Traffic Study satisfy the BOCC as to traffic impacts to CR 335?
Road impact fees. - Lee [,eavenworth.
Time xx* 3-02 -O0 ,r ,i!,r,,,.
Does the BOCC wish to vary from its regulations regarding how the traffic impaq, fee is
collected resulting in the following difference:
c. Original Development (33 lots)
d. Proposed Development (104lots)
316 ADT
1078 A[!T
1997 No.4 impact fee - has a presumptive ADT $226 dollars ResolutiongT-L1l and we really
intent to comply - struggling - took 226 and multiplied it by 102 Resolution doesn't do it that
way - has a worksheet - starts with the ADT and talt,c-redits none of which have been done other
than ours - willing to accept a road impact fee un&er th&calculations - they will be happy to pay.
Commissioner Houpt - may not agree with'tfie- crdd.i,l,g "'
$118,206 agrees - Lee. Work with staff'tb,qomBlgp With that amount.
"..,
ff
Concerns of the neighbS farl Uanlont traffic. I-70 intersection, water supply, wildlife,
density and site locatign*d(Ihh, )VWTF.
"sfl l .,.
Dealt with these at PC,qn#.at NewiiUastle.
Water ruppty.j,,,,i'' 0,000*b1q..*S and state has signed off on a legal and adequate water supply.
Wildlife,l- an"increasing issue - this plan is a better choice - some houses out there - and we
belpen is,iPlt rr fesign than the 133 lot design.
Density,,- it'*lq an'increase in density - look at those two documents, this type of development
and type'ef d&nsity is approved by the Town - can understand - the perfect size of when we
moved herd.hnd the increases pressures - finding a place to put this density - this acre tract is
perfect.
Site of WWTF - here or 200 feet up the Colorado River would be the same - make sure you are
treating the affluent properly.
PC conditions - agree with all of those.
Staff recommends the BOCC require the following items regarding the 100-year floodplain:
The 100 year floodplain boundary line and the floodway line should be shown on the appropriate
subdivision maps consistent with the effective 1982 Flood Plain Study.
Right to farm, one dog, standard plat notes.
SIA and site application has to be approved by the CDPHE.
Perirneter fencing discouraged.
30
School district fees -
lO0Vo of mineral rights and restricted by the property owner. North 1007o and south - 507o
Obtain the vacation of the previously approved site plan.
Complied with all the Planning Commissioner recommendations.
Fully bermed site plan for the WWTF. :
Completes presentation.
Fred said that staff strongly recommends the BOCC consistently apply the same Traffic Impact
Fee regulations to this development as it has to all other developments in the County and not
make an exception for the developer when he is asking for a 2l5%o increase in density but a
l,l50%o decrease in obligated impact fees.
Commissioner input -
Commissioner Houpt - time - 3-12-00 *{'<**
wildlife - thought about having an expert do an analysis
.:,:i::., ', ., ,.,.,,..
Homes and clusters for migration routes i,
Karl as a natural site plan - he showed the open space and the breaks i4-between the hops&s
maintain spaces between residences. -il :r:'i: "',,i,, ,,ir
'''
Wildlife finds a way through - j.
Houpt - in rural development we need to look at these things. €- "1\
.
Covenants - discourage fencing - could end up with a fence;,$il thp waftluough
Karl - perimeter fencing is not allowed. Limitation they g<J-t tlq,i&,,p_omQprohibitions on
fencing. --.\_-
. .,,** d
Houpt - how make some amenities public and private
I-ee - Pond and basketball will be private. Trail DlMg the Count/iRoad and the fisherman's trail
to the river open to the public.
Internal trail - private.
17 public spots for access to the river.
s-""'x "*{rn
t"'
"n : :::
Carolyn - no difference from the Count)'{"J t Ca$tyn clarified.**x time 3-16-00
,uus..,,,1r,,,i
,
Public comments: -.,\$\\ .\..o,",,ri
See sign up sheet. 6s4,"
Exhibit YY - applicagk*s,ftower point
Chairman Martin effied ExhibitJY into the record.
Time - 3-24-07 xxxx%,,. 'B #
Martin - call egiih,persofr by nu*" - if there is duplication, not cover the same ground over and
over. Courteo.lrs - no verbalattacks. Civil presentation.
Applicant can rebut * remsin and then rebut
reg S{iFs ',J.25:00'*** - CR 335 - time donated to Steve worrall
-donate time to Craig
Dale - donate time to Ken Collins
Ken Collins - CR 335 - my property all blanked out - reiterate people in New Castle and bought
this property - assured he would have open space - drawing that doesn't have anything except
the houses. Peg and Ken bought this property from Hilton and he said they would have open
space and would purt 12 houses but do not agree with this plan - heavily impacted - hurt rural
living - hurt our wells - 13 million gals of water will hurt - East of me is the FAAS' property -
less than 10 gallons in his well. Developer got over 80 galls a minute - water shortage - won't
sustain it. Points: talked to several people and many years building homes and all feel they have
been ripped off in trying to build home and one person to make a profit. Talked to many homes
in New Castle to Silt ove{pass, almost IOIVo have signed petitions against this. A high impact in
this area. New Castle - low density and a rural area - developer asked for narrow roads and up in
building size - have an adverse affect to the fire dept. Sheriff will need to control - narrow roads
- no parking on roads - to me this is a high density and fire will be a problem - made a statement
- fire department could be there in 2 minutes- a volunteer and will take 20 minutes - concerned
about fire and when the developer in the past wanted - BOCC recommended open space or
3t
buffer the adjacent owners - l2l houses tried to talk to - left buffer place - Hilton said if you
vote against me now I will make it worst.
Martin - no personal attacks.
Ken - talked to New Castle - this heavy density not appropriate for this property - DOW will
have a negative impact on their projects - 100's of pictures of animals going to the river on this
property. This type of development we will never recover from - whole reason we live here - I-
70 eyesore - only weeds around the current houses - no attempt to landscape - last several times
this has come up and 8 commissioners on previous boards have looked at this area and it can not
hold more than 33 houses and the wildlife habitat. Saying open space - below the CR 335 is
totally unbuildable - can't hardly walk up - talked to Town of New Castle - does not help the
Town - causes the burden - like CR335 and to maintain - taxpayers expense. Cherish the open
space and wildlife.
3:34 Steve Worrall - attorney in Glenwood - reps Collins family to come and assist them -
don't think I can add the depth of emotion these people feel - other who own property and are
severely impacted in this change of density. No overheads or brochures - people t*lking from the
heart. Section Comp Plan - encourage a land use pattern to recognize the land Sfr* {€{€{<3.36
Submit this application does not further that goal but rather counters that goq]. h- **
P&Zrecommendation - based on the MOU that has since expired - waived"dhouriffiike'lt was
the holy grail - MOU not based on public input regarding the site planJof tlq WWIF,-*gpn-
neighbors should attend - didn't know - property not posted - when,tl&r&was p_ubli$iriput -
letter from the Town of New Castle and they are nor recommend-e,C dFpih.qal. Cciffions only
apply if the BOCC approves. Buck stops with the BOCC. Obviouily this is qfe-pdity issue and a
central 3l5To increase in density. A 33 lot subdivision and this dqveloplnent r.ffht is on the books
- any denial here will not impoverish this developer. Go,pk=an&objryts € a Comp plan don't
think we need to get as technical - not rocket science. A build'out will hate significant impact -
3 x the impact on everything - traffic, I-70; wildlife and some o[ the things said have challenged
my common sense - how they preserve the rural'Cturacter with T02 versus the 33 - this plan is
inconsistent and incompatible with infrastructure.
Two more things - developer has given concessioi,rs - i\pact fees to BOCC - these impact fees
will in no way mitigate these impacts on CRiF35,,; W.,p,,.p'pll hy its own way. Ken Collins - open
space - south acreage not buildable - ingenlBbs tciqiqrclude this steep hillside. Violates corlmon
sense - can't mitigate this 3l5Vo increa$U in,derlaity fl either fits or not. Project history - Ken
Collins - meeting over the years to expre$'-stheiqftisition in front of P & Z; BOCC's same land
owners, same or similar reguests - last tirile- BUCC - they had to consider the same burdens and
benefits - increase in deq$t(r.lA3 lots was all the neighborhood could withstand. Change in the
BOCC - suggest gottg76[y,..c-and request you say no to this
,uK,: : " *'"**
Craig Schultz - CR 334#{}ext prQf}Erty own down - main issue is does this fit with the Comp
plan - no. First addressedl",,lvherr the MOU 2l25lt5 - quote - "it should be noted that the .....
listen xx** 3:43 .i.. One tr$6,$ take the land south - not using the comp plan - answer is no it
does notfil. Property over time - property from Garfield Creek - higher developments and then
on fgenDvidri.Creek all this has developed - from Divide Creek to Garfield Creek - 28 homes
- alQwin$,the33 to go he does an comparison. Propose a development never seen this kind of
devek5prnent\prdtect the rural land between Garfield Creek and Divide Creek.
One thin$.qer$ important - illustrative - plans - not to scale - renderings - not the reality -
surroundinf,and use - State Wildlife area - this development is not listed - one step below
critical - severe habitat - HOA - will get stunted - water treatment, roads maintained,2" of
asphalt - snow removal, weeds on south side - sewer plant and police roads - nilTow roads and
no parking - narrowing - strict signs for the fire trucks - mineral rights - south side are leased
open space on 335 are leased. MOU - New Castle refused to renew - pre-annexation - never
annex this - if this is being planned to be denser they will not annex denser than Castle Valley.
Common sense - way to dense and not in the best interest of the County
Pete Thomas - 3:48
Peter Thomas on behalf of John Colson - 100 feet away from where the applicant wants to put
the WWTF. Broad bush level - the BOCC has already approved 33 units - no more subdivisions
on the property - want to make sure they do not boot strap the development. Come in with a
rezoning - gives them a resubdivision. Clarification - the number of units - 121 units
consistency under the 3 mile plan of New Castle. Can't view in density without intensity.
Intensity greater impacted. Rural character open space and wildlife - if you impact that hub will
have a rippling effect we are talking about in more detail. MOU - a step further - MOU provides
32
that if the applicant doesn't get in 2 years - it's voided - legal significance - document doesn't
exists - unfounded - how is the applicant coming in with rezoning - residences can rely on the
existing zoning - only other way is to come in and ask for the BOCC to rezone it as it's in
compliance with the Town and County.P &Z referred to the town of New Castle. How this
application complies - void of it - meaning its there statutory duty to make a recoflrmendation -
no factual finding - how can you give a rezoning without that information. PUD component to
allow you guys to say this is a great application - so much we should vary with the zoning and
give them some flexibility - better stuff - what is the community getting - basketball court, open
space - all the community getting is an access easement to the river - not very well utilized by
the public
Kent Jolly - 3:53 - Canyon Creek Drive - John Olson to the west and immediate south with Bret
- obviously inappropriate for the neighborhood - attempt at spot zoning way outside the
infrastructure. Main - WWTF - 15 feet from his property line - 650 feet of beautiful river water
- a W-WTF is a horrendous impact - smell - here to propose condition let him move in into his
own subdivision and pay it's on way - on top or ours - more on his than his -P &_Z- no notice
of an approved sewer plant - found later a sign where the plant would be - meetgt$tfta letter of the
law - but not the intent to allow the neighbors to know. Sewer plant to be bSld he$$n-o; -
heavy handed. Concern about the water solution - Collins and he damage.gffit ui'6n h\
system - let the HOA take us on - no concession offered there - beggiqglib 1o"$<e.tlr%#i&r trail
system - parking lot next to our property and trail to attract the gener*l piibliC h,'hfikiS a private
neighborhood down there. Compare it to Schultz - mineral righ1g"art3l,p?tngd an&tpffit - people
are bidding on them as we speak - out of the control of the lOA a \',
3:58 time **** Bret Jolly - donate to John Olson ,r,i*--*], ,]:- 1
1i'
Karen Nadon - CR 335 - I %miles west of the development r,ryfidiU heartedty agree with what
has been said. This seems to be so dense and hartlrto consider it \ftCIuld be approved. Been
through this process repeatedly -33 homes met thp,,Brilidelines - increased density why now
acceptable - precedent set with the Bershenyi - wfuateVi4,you do here you will determine
precedence. We need lead way - many excep.tlCIns - others will accept exceptions - 5 feet 10 feet
between houses - drive by and look at a hoiiBh.in-heryden the existing house - Town of New
Cdstle no intention to annex burden on thB IIOle,qSrd taxpayers - while the developer will enjoy
the profits. Asking to really listen to the HDRs;'ilived here 20 years and invested time and
money and now that's being threatened - G :rdl er the interest of the neighbors who have lived
.,t11t""",. "+ \.
Jamie Roth - time ffi,,;f 4-02 CR'33l property next over on the south side of the road - concerns
are with the nature of'tfiffinsity a!ffas a30 acre lot - neighbors have 30 acres and neighbors 10
acres; an incredible diffefoence - from Apple Tree to the next greatest thing - an incredible
amount of density',.- She woUltl not be here if it was for 33 homes - would support it - density is
the questiOn - wouid"delight about getting 10 gals a minute from her well - what will it look like
Cqncerns * section south of the road - developer can't build on it - has mineral
,aslhough children will be playing on the land up hill - not usable recreation. Rocks
Staff report a limited urban density - PUD - one that is adjacent to a municipalities =
I 7z miles to the grocery store - this is not adjacent to a municipality - road impacts - very
ptzzled-road impact - 300 odd trips and increase by 200 trips per day - 26 people are not
leaving their house that day - how it does not impact that road I do not understand. 335 is in
need of repair and not in the best condition. The current Egress and Ingress is showing damage -
not only do we want to put this - don't want to pay your impact fee by 80Vo - shows this is a
development that will proceed to slip though every loop hold and asked the BOCC not to do this
- a33 PUD - where the Developer make changes - she would support this - talking about a
small city without support.
John Olson
Time 4-0gx*{,
Owns property with Kent Jolly, downriver and most impacted if this is approved in its current
location will greatly condemn my property - when I first started addressing met with County
Planner - Mark made it very clear no on this application - the members of DOW as
neighborhood - can't write down - have stated very much against - Tresi - hit the nail on the
33
head how 104 homes would be better - doesn't follow logic - guys have conditions of approval
by the P & Z. Conditions of approval only because the P & Z - understand how much emphasis
as the MOU and this was done in a vacuum with no public input - Town Trustee meeting to
review the MOU where they denied re-approving - read quotes - {<{<** 4' 1 1
Gregg Rossi - density far too great - seems like they should be built for everyone - traffic at end
of 105 only make it worst. Gregg Russi - MOU - spent a total of t hour on this review - Town
of New Castle that carried - no idea it would be used as a battering ram to take it where it was.
Mayor Protem - never cared to listen - Dwain - after the vote of no conditions - hope Garfield
County - we want them to handle this application. Like people said - you're all we have. No
conditions on vote - all money this will create - quick math - 25O a lot = $26 million - 33 at
$350 that's $11.5 million. This is America and he has that right - some serious improvements
need to be made to handle - paving all 335 or widening Exit 105. Misquote - about the number
of impact - 10 vehicle trips per day - big. One of the other conditions - sewer plant - should be
one that everyone should be able to agree on - if this is approved - we hope - we should be
allowed to use it.
Sewer Plant - a more detailed - more screening - Trustees the visual impacts from I-70 and
can't do anything about it - no control on I-70 to what goes on - all the trees;f,&er seen this -
trees everywhere - can't be mitigated - can't plant trees on the other side of3helrivegr;,,,., 2Feet-
general contractor - builds homes - height requirements is 28 feet and th#f€*erc 5Z%"fo"pu"tt
me and Kent very much. r jtu. * \,d
State board that ipproved the WWTF - will not and cannot approve the plari$id a heighborhood
well - his well did not show up on the application to the state. Oni&gjai"n, no ilo$Ce this sewer
plant was approved - by BOCC nor did his neighbors. Whatpls6'ban bdrd.g-rre l6ss than 10 gal
per minute - do these well test - getting these great results. 4417-00 *xx* ffig thing and most
important - location of the WWTF stated it will conder46fris propeltV -$andscaping 3 ash trees
- represents the size currently 104 homes - a lot of talk ;fu - r-"aiiit pfint - ,p nff.*i Creek -
water reclamation site - currently x number of feet from his home aftd you see 10 feet - scaled at
15 feet - well is 15 feet - will go to my property line - litildTaith in major bureaucracies
comment made - best that we can do - do not bclieve - if you own my home you would not
believe - sleep in the bed you make - if he wantsL let hir-n,sleep in this bed - put it anywhere on
his property - let his neighbor or his new.ldfid.purc[p$$ - live with these impacts. Density -
personal opinion. If he has the ability whelEBit will,ncit impact the neighborhood - High County
has reviewed cannot physically do this - will supply a letter - appeal to you guys; please do not
approve. ."
Late comer - time +-Zt p#''ht zgerald- CH 138 - difficult job and can appreciate it as 4 years
as a planner of Glerpr.fu Aa q years on the P & Z - all of us don't like change in the
neighborhood - mySbuf is not,,,+q.hiter - upset - the fact of the matter is the tough job - our
county is to triple ov&,,t[*u- next 2$Years because of nice place and gas industry - where are the
folks going toffirox.. syrhp3thize with the folks on CR335 - can't turn down - the layout of the
:yql: no$if,"{...9re.\,h* o}* y:ldoy R.anc!; Los Amisos -^sope p"ofl: emrh,alls on the
MOU = d$iten4ed sidiatitilllwith New Castle - Hilton gave New Castle everything and then more
and ono Board can not bind a succeeded Board - an honorable thing when people
New Castle did - wish you well in your decision - profession is realsho'ii, up'
estate !bf the 4 houses - a week doesn't go by that he doesn't get a call to purchase
the homes,orbuy the lots.
Time {<{<*{< 't"4:25 - applicant rebuttal - defend a point - think it's unfair to paint the P & Zinthe
light of bad guys - they listened to the people - conditions, and took public comments - respect
the position and they worked hard in a number of meetings and worked with the public on
comments - outcome not always what we want - P &Z did their job - did not rely on the MOU
- like to see if you approve it. New Castle - pending - your position you can't change the
commitments to BOCC or to the Town because of the MOU - as far as the WWTF site
application * have to abide by the application - difficult to respond. It's enclosed system and a
direct discharge to the river - not sure what with relationship to a well - testimony held for
development proposes - again heard some comments - don't want public to have access to their
river - neighborhood for amenities - housing not available otherwise - try to create a balance -
water piece of it - done well tests - remedies built in if we injury someone. Done what was
asked to do. Impact on infrastructure - tension of the process - close by PUD and what it is -
not asking for a variance - propose standards and set backs - process have that flexibility -
narrow than what is specified - much larger than most neighborhood streets - exchange no on
street parking - lots available - give and take in the PUD process. The idea is to create better
34
planning for the needs in Garfield County - if we didn't the town of New Castle would be
impacted.
Lee Leavenworth - requested the Board approve with the conditions and approval of the WWTF
and work out the traffic impact fees. Time 4'31 {<**
Houpt - update on the status of the WWTF - location approved - confused
Fred - the facility was approved in a bit of time - when it came to the BOCC - site application
by CDPHE to make a recommendation on this location and designed at a certain level -
happened and this Board made a recommendation for approval. State said we are unwilling to
approve a facility until such time the zoning is in place and meets the Comp plan - where they
don't have the proliferation - waiting to hear from you the BOCC.
McCown - waiting CDPHE is approved - where the application is
Fred - zoning - without that there is no application. Clearly based on zoning.
Fred - MOU has no effect - discussion before it died - a lot of it - one point made on the
original staff perspective of not having multi family - based on MOU - again tQffiestion on the
MOU - parasraph 2 - 121 sinele familv dwellinss - died - provision of tl& PUD requiringMOU - paragraph 2 - 121 single family dwellings - died - provision qfthh P_U-p requiring
various types - on the height issues - 40 feet is allowed in the AI - read ffille coriilitiofuUse by
McCown - remain in his stance - Garfield Count! Oo"uo', accept these - not trails and no parks
- suggest - perfect for DOW- a natural trai-l'*LOVA - loves it - they're in the trail business.
Condition 15 - that will taken out or specifiBfuon ftry.,a$ieement
Lee will find someone else by final plagi"""-.. ''',.^0,, "'
McCown - that will be a point of discussion but that's where I'm coming from; Garfield County
is the appropriate entity, I arn scared to 8p-,.,,ath on this liability issue and I know attorneys have
different views and this isilit the place to aii those. But if we ever get to that point, I don't want
to accept these kinds of entities because it would set a precedence that would overwhelm us.
Commissioner Houpt - we are still in discussion as a Commission on where we stand on this
type of project
,s-..o, I'm not of the same opinion as Larry on that particular one. We haven't come
to terms on thi$'$3.a Conlmission.
Summatiorp q *:F
ConditionNo. f *d-
ke;.,,the c.b4dffio4*?S.proposed by the Planning Commission was that we do it prior to final plat
andiit was'not'iqtenilBd that it be any of the Collins spot which are limited to 25 feet.
Fred - whicii 6 ftffir.r; looking for the offer by the divelopment to mitigate the Collins property.
Lee - they.will be lots on one of the cul-de-sacs but not on the Collins cul-de-sac.
Fred - talkiilg about building heights. The Board would be interested in where you envision this
to be.
Karl - Lots in closest proximity to the Collins property. Some questions after the P & Z as to
which lots they were thinking when they made the condition, it could be 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 in the two
pods that are adjacent, it could the entire pod immediately to the west, the west view sheds were
talked about at the P &2, we're flexible on that..
Lee - understood the condition to be all the lots on this pod; then there was an offer of 6 being
limited to 2 bedrooms and 2 baths and those would be in the other cul-de-sacs but the condition
was to tell us by final plat.
Commissioner McCown - the ones immediately adjacent to the Collin property would be the
height restrictions in that cul-de-sac pod there.
Ire - yes.
Traffic impacts - formula - x number of dollars x ADT - how come so far apart.
Fred - applied to the new 71 lots - understands when the 33 lots were approved, the timing was
that the capital improvement-wasn't complete - then sitting board said you will put in real
35
improvements at a cost of $118,000 split by 33 lots in that Resolution as $3,385. - Viewed that -
mitigation put in place for existing 33 lots - you mitigated the 33 now what - =
Lee - will pay whatever the Resolution requires.
Commissioner McCown - traffic impacts and the formula used x number of dollars for x number
of ADT's - this shouldn't be a rocket science and how come are we so far apart.
Fred applied the same calculations to the new 71 lots as if it was just 71 new lots; 7l lots for
$3,385. The way we viewed that was the acceleration lanes developed by the developer was put
in place to mitigate for 33 new lots. So then that's the existing status. So what we said was well,
you've mitigated in theory your 33 lots, what are you going to do with the new 71 lots. If this
were a virgin piece of ground, why wouldn't we go 7l x $226 ADT or a dollar for ADT which
gets you to the $180,000 where I have a hard time understanding is where they come up with
$14,000 and I come up with $180,000?
l*e - stated he will pay whatever the Resolution requires to pay. He will sit down with Fred and
determine. Remember under the calculation under the Resolution there is an adjustment for
present worth, an adjustment for inflation, an adjustment for taxes, it not a simple calculation.
Commissioner McCown - I was basing it on the $226 per ADT and the standard 9.5 and took it
times 71 and came up with $152,000. ,soi'ii\o
f ^^ ^L^L,-) ^-^:-- LL-'-----:tt ----- ---l--r-, --- :- -,- - :-,,I inilre stated again they will pay whatever is required. &.
A motion was made by Commissioner Houpt and seconded by Commissiqd€r\
the public hearing; .#,' '**
.iLuv prruuv rrw4!.rrr$e _i ** -.ln favor: Houpt - aye McCown - aye Martin - aye ",
." \ 't4';
A motion was made by Commissioner Houpt to deny this applicatioh*
U'}9 ihu ohuryt"q of'ths npighborhood. We are in"3q1t ;dly .f hdoring, don't doubtth#iihit
-ff that doesn't mean that we shouldn't proceed igo-pgudent manner.
)f Commlsiioner MiCown - second for diicussion.
*
V.V Commissioner McCown - some of the people'that'Iaatii(AlIere today are living in homes thatI were created by land use that probably wasn't irrqpulfu to their neighbors at the time it wasy created as well; I have not prepared to stick my t
"uO
in sand and say no more growth in
d Garfield County; if the Town of New p1istl"e,.has made the statement and I've not heard them
say that, but it has been testified to today_. that they've made the statement that they will never
annex this property, that means they are iiever coming west of where their city limits is now.
So all the growth in New Castle will be from Castle Valley east to Canyon Creek and that's
their choice but,Iionlt think that means that there can't be anything other than 10 and 20
acres density wesf'ofNew Castle; there is still appropriate land use out there; this does meet
$0 rnrcffin8Fm*fiaa momoutjreent.lrcetisnto arnmicip$tiffitiItltotrEilu**,is.\'f*' W#mo#hnmhmo*q,m$.ttre,ucigbrbodtr,,')4'thefe are trnatigvehd wirth ootf,lrrem&ftHfr
\N r ttnm *,fu|mp .fr"prn the State.but Ithnk wc'vc EGEil u&t <ian lhppenfurct thoqdrt"ffiffig
.r,0 S , tffidjidil-aru,,lry eqotteo csoems thattrr"ut rrr*l@:rffinr.u*;u*o.l -
\ .S'.,J mswcrcdhths,hnd hac boen approved,for 33._l$s wtich,proqious@ havc been deenrcdqrltihin
our Comp ffift".i* mdt,New Castle's Comp Plan; it is popular, heck no, does it meet the letter
;so'what do you do? Do you vote for something that's is just not popular
so y@fl.mi}kt gffiel€igted when you run and offend any of your neighbors in your County or
do yog do6#hat id*ight by the letter of the law. They've met the criteria, do you like it, no;
would I fiReif it +f,,as next to me, no; is it right, - probably in every case. We have to deal
with reality aNtl set aside ourselves from emotions and it's not easy; I've got friends that sit
out h€re in,the room and look at me like I'm the biggest villain in Garfield County; I'm not,
I'm tryif$ to follow our regulations that we have to abide by when we vote and rule on land
use issues. I don't have the luxury of going "I'm going to vote no just because I don't like it".
I can't do that.
Chairman Martin - no.
Commissioner Houpt - well then and for clarification purposes, I'm not voting against this
simply because I do not like it, I stated some very definite issues that are hanging out there
and you know one that I didn't mention islbg question of the water wellfocatiw*fif
Wasle lvatsr Treatrcnt Plant and how thai's fffi!'to be Slehiedrip'#ff"tt. There are many
ciue'stions posed to us today about this proposeO O&etopment and if you lggk attqg,,ffidtth
. ffii@tgwhrc,it ie in theCouFty I,thiRh*hat you have to asta Sreptioil tifwfre ihb
vyil-$ife analysis is and how it impacts the community in the neighbor.
Chaifth[n Maritn - well first of all I'd like to thank everybody for being here, the time and
money that has gone into this application, the emotion that's been riding high on all sides -
it's tough on both sides, we understand and Larry put it right, we have to make the decision
based on the information we have, what we have found. Number one I have not found that
we have an error in zoning, but PUD is an option in reference to subdivisions as well as re-
36
subdividing etc. which is an option that we as this Board allow and encourage. If there's an
improvement, do I find that there's going to be enough in increase positive benefits in this
PUD to make a change in that zoning; well this is what this meeting is about. So we have to
consider that. The very question of, is this the idea that we have when we sat down, Lany
and I and you weren't here yet (referring to Tresi) but we talked about zoning, we talked
about clustering, Lee was there on clustering; we talked to everybody about clustering, is it
what we feel we wanted to achieve under the clustering, we have to put that right back here
and we also put an agreement with all our municipalities that we would review these kinds of
things with them and we would expect to have good honest answers back to us from all of the
municipalities and how it again played into their future; we also said we'd harmonize with
our Comp Plans, back and forth; I'm left in a lurch there, we're going to have to call it - like
they say, we're giving baby to you, it's a tar baby to us we don't want to touch it. Well, that's
again, the buck stops here. The other one is that we have standards in reference to our
what are we going to allow and are we willing to make
those coffiiiimise$ tfiid'er thti,
puGrpne, wnat are we gomg to alow ano are we wilrng to I
'the'PUD and does that have enough positive to allow those
changes to happen. And that's what I have to look at. Is it really an amenity? Ms. Dahlgren is
there's even a mine shatt that's on end that's going to collapse some day aild we're ioing to
rebuild it and that's at the other end which is outside New Castle but it's still coming into
this. Those are the realities and those are the things that we lrave to have is institutional
knowledge in making these decisions. And Mr. Hilton is,trot a villain; he's a respectable man,
his wife's a wonderful lady and I just tell you that it's their right to make as much as they
can, that's the American way and it's also your right to be heatd. So dgain, with all that
weight on our shoulders, we're going to make a decision. Tffi,Lrya:rnotionw'm6med
F, S-*"Tr,esi,$aid.:Agree o?in$ryrye'll call for thd question, all those in favor
iiiotion to deny based on the findings? ,.,,u
In favor: Houpt - aye Martin - aye Opposed:. l$'cCo h* aye
Chairman Martin - we have made findings in regard to this issue. Some of the issues we needed
tomrffiffiff#he
ffi,#&.ff from there.
ADJOURNMENT
ATTEST:
#li ,@
',r^
-ss
\\,sl('
zffigan&incr$ased density etc. has not met ttie te$il,' So
,v..n
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
,sr$ii: '
'.h
's
s.
"t " ,@;*,,.,,q
ll:
37