Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.0 Staff Report PC 11.10.07PC Ourclo7 (Continued from 1 1/08/06) PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS APPLICATION owrYER(s) REPRESENTATTVE ENGINEER ATTORNEY LOCATION WATER SEWER SIZE EXISTING ZONING Planned Unit Development (PUD) & Preliminary Plan for the "Rapids on the Colorado PVD" Rapids Development Corporation, The Rapids on the Colorado Homeowners Association, Gene R. Hilton and Mary Jo Hilton Gene Hilton Mountain Cross Engineering l.eavenworth and Karp, PC One Mile West of New Castle on CR 335 Wells to serve a Central Water System Package Treatment Plant - Central Sewer 121.48 Acres A/I and A/R/R/D STAITF COMMENTS The Staff recorlmendation remains the same as proposed below. The only additional information since November 8, 2006 has been the issuance of well permits by the Division of Water Resources followed by their opinion of no material injury for the water system. (See attached email.) Additionally, Staff, members of the public, and the Planning Commission discussed the issues below at length at the last meeting. Several motions and votes were made on the rezoning to PUD that ultimately ended up continuing the matter to January. No discussion or vote was made regarding the preliminary plan. kr response, the Applicant stated at the end of the meeting they intended to provide responses to the County for these items discussed below. No such response was sdbmitted to the County. As amatterof process, onlyCheryl Chandler, ShirleyBrewer, Colin[,aird, SeanMartin, and Phil Vaughn may vote on this matter. (Lastly, the minutes from the meeting are attached for your review.) tr. ORIGINAL STAFF POINTS TO BE DISCUSSED Based on this review, and prior to any total decision by the Planning Commission, Staff has provided the following points that need to be individually addressed in the hearing: 1) Proposed Dimensional Requirements: The basic modifications from the ARRD and AI zoning and subdivision regulations requested as part of the proposed PUD include the following matrix: 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. Section 4.07.03(2) requires that the PUD shall provide an adequate interrurl street circuWion svstem designedfor the type of traffic generated, safety, separalionlromlivW areas, convenience and access. Private internal streets may be perrnitted, provid.ed that adequate access for police and fire protection is maintained. Bicycle traffu shall be providedfor when the site is usedfor residential pur?oses. The design requests a more nirrow road ROW from 60' to 50' which can only be granted by the BOCC. Section 4.O7.03(5) requires that the PUD shall provide for variety in housing types and densities, otherfacilities and Common Open Space. 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 llave a minimum FAR? The Applicant's response to this standard is meaningless. As the Applicant is aware, varying house types include multi-family units that have the effect of providing a more affordable unit type. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a technique that could partially address this issue. Staff acknowledges that no regulatory affordable housing is required because the property is located in Study Area 2. However, it does not mean that this standard does not apply.FAR, deed restrictions, etc., are just a few techniques to allow for reduced house sizes that create different sizes ofhouses. Section 4.07 .O3(6)requires thatthe PUD shall provide adequate privacy between dwelling units. 2) 3) 4) Internal Road ROW Width Rear Yard Setback Side Yard Setback s) The Applicant states that the lots have been designed "so that privacy is provided between the units." Staff would like to know how that was accomplished. Staff understands the benefit of having most of the lots back up to some open space but what about the other sides? This standard has been inadequately addressed. Section 4.O7 .04 requires thatthe maximum height of buildings may be increased above the maxirnum permittedfor like buildings in other zone districts in relation to the following ch.aracteristics of the proposed building: (1) Ifs geographical location; (2) The probable effect on surrounding slopes and mountainous terrain; (i1 Unriasonable ihverse visual effict"on ailjacent sites or other areas inihe immediate vicilrity; (O) il?lt:{f!"problems for adiacent sites caused by shadows, /oss of air circulation or (5) Inflience 6n the general vicinity, with regard. to extreme contrast, vistas and open space; and (6) Uses within the proposed building. 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/R/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 to25 feetto be more consistent with al the residential heights in the surroundin g arcathe zone districts. Section 4.O7 .O5 requires thatthe minimum lot areas and the minirnum setback restrictions may be decreased below and the tnoximum lot coverage may be increased above those applicable to like buildings in other zone districts to accommodate specific build.ing types with unusual orientation on the lot or relationship between buildings. The averaging of lot areas shall be permitted to provide flexibility in design and. to relnte lot size to topography, but each lot shall contain an acceptable building site. The clustering of development with useable cotnrnon open areas shall be permitted to encourage provision for, and access to, common open areas and to save street and, utility construction and maintenance costs. Such clustering is also intended to accotnmodate contempororyt building types which are not spaced individually on their own lots but share common side walls, cornbined service facilities or similar architectural innovations, whether or not providing for separate ownership of land and buildings. Architectural style of buildings shall not be a hasis for denying approval of a PUD application. As noted the PUD proposes to significantly increase maximum lot coverage from l|Vo to 50Vo and significantly reduce minimum lot area from two acres to 7,500 sq. ft. However, again, there is no justification as required by the standard set forth above. Also note, the proposed design is not a true "cluster" design. This standard has not been met. Section a.08.05(g) requires that the Application demonstrat ethe provisionforwaler, sevter, telephone, electricity, gas and cable television, il applicable. 6) 7) 8) 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 not been met regarding water as there continues to be a letter of material injury. Section 4.08.05(7Xb) requires a development schedule ind,icating the approximnte dates when construction of the various stages of the PIJD can be expected to begin and be cornpleted; The Applicantproposes to complete construction of the development within 30 months (2.5 years) of (presumably) the approval of the PUD / Preliminary Plan. This needs to be clarified because the Applicant will only have about 6 months to construct all improvements as required in the SIA following final plat approval. Additionally, Section 4.09.01 requires that development must begin within I year of approval of the PUD. Staff believes a new review should occur by the Burning Mountain Fire Protection District with this new plan so that the new street system / cul-de-sac illrangement does not conflict with hydrant spacing. This should be required prior to any hearing before the BOCC. 10) The proposed revision to the site plan shows two open space tracks separated by CR 335 totaling approximately 79 acres or 66Vo of the property. The Application proposes to place the open space south of CR335 in a perpetual easement. The open space tract on the north side of CR335 surrounds all of the lots and contains a sports field, tot lot, pond, basketball court, 16 space public parking lot, public trail, and l5-foot fisherman's easement. It is assumed that all of the open space is to be owned and maintained by the HOA. The trail, 16- space parking lot, and fisherman's easement shall be dedicated to the public. The Applicant has also committed to allow public access to the other amenities on the property within certain limitation (sunrise to sunset). The question here is how these public amenities are dedicated to the public. 11) The Application is significantly deficient in addressing existing noxious weed management as well as providing for its management over tome as the subdivision matures. Staffsuggests the Planning Commission require the following items to be submitted and reviewed prior to scheduling the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners: e) a. b. Provide a noxious weed inventory and map; Implement a weed management plan based on the inventory; Inventory and treat the Russian olive and tamarisk as soon as possible; Provide more details in the covenants regarding responsibility of weeds and mosquitos; Complete a revegetation plan as stated above, with a plant materials list and with an estimate of disturbed areas, a security for revegetation will be established once this information is supplied; Provide a soil management plan as stated above; and Address a plan of action should Kochia and Russian thistle becomes a problem. c. d. e. f. (} 4 1. 2. 3. II. STAFFRECOMMENDATION Staff cannot recommend approval of the proposed PUD and Preliminary Plan until the Planning Commission reviews and provides direction on the points outlined above. Additionally, should the Planning Commission make a recommendation of approval, Staff suggests the following conditions be a starting point for discussion at a minimum: That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Planning Commission, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Planning Commission. The Applicant shall be allowed to reduce the Garfietd 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. 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 legal and non- negligent agricultural operations. b) All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in accordance with zoning, an6 other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County. c) All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions maybe made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries. d) One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries. 4. 5. 6. 7. The Applicant shall follow the County's process for vacating the existing Final Plat for the existing Rapids Subdivision. The Applicant shall depict the following items on the Final Plat: a. The 100-year flood way; b. The 100-year flood fringe; The Applicant shall provide a graphic representation (map) of the three zone districts proposed which include the Utility, Open Space and Cluster-Single Family Residential Zone District prior to the hearing before the BOCC. The Applicant shall construct all the public improvements which which shall be included in the SIA. alks, etc. and 8. No Final Plat shall be approved until the wastewater treatrnent faci 6en approved by CDPHE and a letter of that approval has been submitted to the County as part of the Final Plat submittal. 9. The Final Plat and CCRs shall have the following note included: Individual site speci.fic eeotechnical investigations and.foundation desien prepared by an eneineer licensed to oractice in the State qf Colorado shall be submitted with the buildine permit application for all development on the Rapids on th , rIDevelopment ({d' 10. The Applicant shall submit an application for a Floodplain Permit prior to the BOCC hearing. - ^] \ ^TJY,1 1. No perimeter fencing be allowed around the entire development so that large game can access the[- river for water. Due to the limited amount of mature I deadvegetation in the Colorado riparian ) ,$ corridor, it shall be left untouched so that it can continue to serve as important raptor perch / \ habitat for hunting in the river. 12.Theproperty is located in the RE-2 School District which requires $200 per unit be paid as a cash-inJieu of School lLand Dedication Fee. In this case, it appears that if the existing 33 lots atready paid this fee, the Applicant is only responsible for paying the fee for 7 I units or $ 14,200 at the time of final plat. This obligation shall be memorialized in the SIA. 13. The Applicant shall be required to pay a road impact fee for 71 of the 104lots because fees have alreadybeen paid forthe existing 33 lots. Those fees would approximatelybe $226per ADT. kr this case, that is roughly $164,471.50. Those monies are then reguired to be spent in accordance with the terms of the County's Capital Improvements Plan. This obligation shall be memorialized in the SIA. NL-4 tr,t- /,b 1 d/ rL' lrr t, ,4ryrt,nl tt lT' ry kl,l lt, F'qvt 6 /*{-^ t).t 6n alryrl ,.1r,,- 'f'V" cr| '