HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 PC Staff Report 05.10.1995PC 5/10/95
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: Cedars PUD Zone District Text and
Plan Amendment and sketch plan
APPLICANTS: Richard & Mary Jolley
LOCATION: A parcel ofland located in a portion of
Section 25, T5S. R91W; located
approximately one (1) mile north of
the Town of New Castle.
SITE DATA: 17.96 acres
WATER: Town of New Castle
SEWER: I.S.D.S.
ACCESS: County Road 245
EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD
ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD, R-MH/G/UD
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject property is located in District A, New Castle Urban Area of Influence as shown
on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Management Districts Map.
11. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The property is adjacent to the south side of the Elk Creek and
Three Elk Run subdivisions. The property slopes from the north to south, with slopes
in the lower third of the property adjacent to CR, 245 ranging in grade from 15% to
over 40%. The upper section of the property has slopes that are gentler, with a range
between 5% to 30%, and an average of 10% to 15%. The predominant vegetation
is pinion and juniper trees, with wheatgrass and sagebrush the main ground cover.
B. Project Description: It is proposed to create a PUD on the 17.96 acre site, which
would allow 10 single-family lots ranging in size from 1.1 acres to 1.4 acres in size,
with 4.5 acres of common open space. The lots will have water supplied by the Town
of New Castle. Sewage will be treated by the use of individual sewage disposal
systems. Access will be provided from County Road 245 via a 40 ft. wide access and
utility easement that ends in a cul-de-sac with a 70 ft radius. The proposed design
of the subdivision is shown on the attached blueline.
C. Background: The applicants had previously submitted a sketch plan for the project
which proposed a conventional subdivision of 8 single-family lots of approximately
2.5 acres each. Based on comments from the Planning Commission, the applicants
have decreased lot size to approximately 1.1 to 1.4 acres per DU, and are requesting
PUD zoning. Approximately 4.5 acres of the site is proposed as open space.
i •
111. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Zoning: As a zone district amendment, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is
required to comply with Section 4.0 of the Garfield County Zoning Regulations:
1. To provide for necessary commercial, recreational, and educational facilities
conveniently located to housing;
To provide for well -located, clear, safe and pleasant industrial sites
involving a nninimum if strain on transportation facilities;
3. To insure that the provisions of the zoning laws which direct the uniform
treatment of dwelling type, bulk, density, and open space within each zoning
district will not be applied to the improvement of land by other than lot -by -
lot development in a manner which would distort the objectives of the zoning
laws;
4. To encourage innovations in residential, commercial and industrial
development and renewal so that the growing demands of the population may
be greater variety in type, design and layout of buildings and by the
conservation and more efficient use of open space ancillary to said
buildings;
5. To encourage a more efficient use of land and of public services, or private
services in lieu thereof and to reflect changes in the technology of land
development so that the resulting economies may inure to the benefit of those
who need homes;
6. To lessen the burden of traffic on streets and highways;
7. To conserve the value of the land;
8. To provide a procedure which can relate the type, design and layout of
residential, commercial, and industrial development to the particular site,
thereby encouraging preservations of the site 's natural characteristics; or
9. To encourage integrated planning in order to achieve the purposes and
objectives of development.
Staff comments on compliance of on each of the objectives are as follows:
Project Complies. The 25 percent PUD open space requirement does create
adjacent passive recreation opportunities adjacent to the proposed units. The open
space is directly adjacent to Lots I, 3, 4 and 5. No proposed easements are shown
on the sketch plan to provide access for Lots 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
2. Not Applicable.
3. Not Applicable.
4. Project Complies. The proposed design would "cluster" the development to include
the most easily developable portions of the project, and the areas under more
significant topographic constraints are shown as open space.
5. Project Complies. One justification for reducing lot size was the provision for New
Castle water, which allows for a minimum lot size of 1.0 acre and the use of ISDS.
The project is more efficient (more dwelling units with disturbance of less land) than
the original proposal, and includes 4.5 acres of open space.
• 1
6. Project Complies. Although the project does generate additional traffic on CR 245,
the project does provide housing in close proximity to New Castle, and within a
reasonable commute to Glenwood Springs.
7. Project Complies. The project does not represent a type or intensity of development
that would threaten or reduce adjacent property values, and may in fact enhance the
market price of adjacent property.
8. Project Complies. The strongest attributes of the project include a density
appropriate for the available services, the open space dedication of areas unsuitable
for residential development, and proposed building envelopes that represent minimal
visual impact to adjacent properties.
9. Project Complies. The project complies with all applicable PUD standards.
B. Soils/Topography: Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D., reviewed the site for geologic concerns. The
site has soils with development limitations due to shrink -swell potential and steep slopes.
He suggests that all lots should have a " soils investigation for proper foundation design" and
that the soils engineer needs to address how close a foundation can be to steeper slopes.
The SCS soils information indicated that there may be ISDS limitations due to soils and
slopes. The applicant's geologist noted that there should not be any problems for ISD
systems, except in areas of steep slopes. (See report pages. Si0'G
C. Road/Access: The road is proposed to have some grades of up to 12%, which the applicant
is requesting a variance to the requirements of the subdivision regulations.. A roadway
serving ten (10) lots is classified as a semi -primitive roadway and is required to have at a
minimum of a 40 ft. ROW, with eight (8) ft. driving lanes and two (2) ft. shoulders and a
gravel driving surface. The proposed roadway centerline is the common lot lines of the
proposed lots. This roadway will have to be dedicated to the public for use, but it will be
maintained by a homeowners association. The procedure for a grade variance is set up for
Preliminary Plan, at which the applicant's engineer will have to demonstrate that the design
variance is justified based on the criteria contained in Section 9:37 of the Garfield County
Subdivision Regulations.
Cul-de-sacs may be permitted, provided they are not over 600 ft. in length. The proposed
cul-de-sac is approximately 1500 ft. long. The Board may approve longer cul-de-sacs " for
topographical reasons and it can be proved that fire protection and emergency egress and
access is provided as a part of the longer design." The applicant has a favorable
recommendation from the Burning Mountain Fire District and the New Castle Ambulance
Service.
D. Fire Protection: Favorable comment has been received from the Burning Mountain Fire
Protection District. The Colorado State Forest Service noted some concerns about the Three
Elk Run development, due to wild fire potential create by steep slopes. Generally the State
Forest Service feels wildfire problems can be minimized by following the recommendations
for construction of homes contained in the CSFS publication "Wildfire Protection in the
Wildland Urban Interface" and "Model Regulations for protecting People and Homes in
Subdivisions and Developments".
E. Proposed Zoning Text: The zoning text for the proposed PUD are attached on pages
141 . The zone text treats the entire project was one zone district, allowing residential
uses as a use by right, home occupation and day nursery as conditional uses, and a studio for
the conduct of arts and crafts as a special use.
Staffwould suggest that the Open Space portion be zoned as "open space", to ensure that the
property is not subsequently subdivided or sold as a separate parcel. In addition, the
minimum lot area should be shown only as "one (1) acre" in the text.
The reference to road standards is not necessary, due to the variance request.
00_ 3 to
•
F. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The project is in clear compliance with the
following portions of the 1984 Comprehensive Plan:
1. Recreation and Open Space: Objective 2 which supports the creation of
Open Space areas that will remain natural in perpetuity, particularly the
transportation corridors between communities.
2. Water and Sewer Services: Objective 2 encourages development located
adjacent to existing subdivisions or municipalities with available capacity in
their central water and/or sewer services to become a part of the existing
system. Policy 2 requires that areas where a logical and economic extension
of sewer lines can occur enter into appropriate agreements to receive service.
3. Environment: Objective 1 discourages development of areas with severe
environmental constraints. The proposed Open Space area is considered to
have server constraints due to slope.
E. Additional Agency Comments:
1. Division of Wildlife: The Division has reviewed the project, and is very
supportive of the design changes since the previous sketch plan (see letter on
page .9 a. ).
2. Town of New Castle: The Town has approved the water taps for the project
(see letter on page • te)«i ).
No other agencies have commented on the project.
iV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
1. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law for the hearing
before the Planning Commission.
2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all
pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard
at the hearing.
3. That the application submitted met the requirements of Section 4.08.05 of the Garfield
County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended.
That the PUD is general conformity with the 1984 Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with
the Purposes and Objectives (Section 4.02) and Standards and Requirements (Section 4.07)
of the PUD Regulations.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the PUD with the following conditions:
1. That all representations of the applicant are considered conditions of approval.
2. That the variance request for the road grade in excess of 12 percent shall be presented at the
time of Preliminary Plan submittal.
3. That the zone text shall be modified to include the open space as a separate district,
precluding any development or fitrther subdivision.
4. That the preliminary plan show an appropriate easement for access to the ditch for
maintenance purposes.
5. fit .3i'S-r'e.-1 C7 ‘.�1 a lJ �a � c_ � i_ To 1k Lit , S w.,,_. i3 � c.--,-1
GoP1c]fr,n�s — APPec.v c v iac� =O 1rA TW-- 1:)Mar�c1.1vG Dov
1S.
• •
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Perry D. Olson, Director
606 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Building & Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Mr. Michaelson:
Cir-,Fis • i c_ D
February 21, 1995
FER TO
OF�
For Wildlife -
For People
I would like to thank you for sending me the Jolley Subdivision
sketch plans. I reviewed the plans and wish to make a few
comments.
This subdivision would be located in a critical deer/elk winter
range in close proximity to other subdivisions as well as the
town of New Castle. We have experienced severe problems here
with dogs chasing wildlife and my request would be the
requirement of kennels or yard fences that would retain dogs. In
addition, the future landowners must know that the Division of
Wildlife is not liable for damage caused by wildlife to gardens,
lawns, or ornamental_ flowers and trees. I would also ask that
any livestock owners within this subdivision be responsible for
providing fence to protect their haystacks.
Once again I would like to thank you.
Respectfully,
Pe7-71 ()Crt--
Don Crane
District Wildlife Manager
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Thomas M. Eve, Chairman • Louis F. Swift, Vice -Chairman • Arnold Salazar, Secretary
Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., Member • Eldon W. Cooper, Mernber • Rebecca L. Frank, Member
William R. Hegberg, Member • Mark LeValley, Member
STATE OF COLORADO •
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Perry D. Olson, Director
606 Broadway
Deriver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
April 10, 1995
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Dave:
77 1EFERTO
1995
For Wildlife —
For People
I found it very refreshing to review the sketch plan for the Cedars
Subdivision. It is quite apparent that the Jolley's have given
considerable thought and concern to the wildlife requirements and
their future within the project boundaries. Our job is made much
easier when we review covenants such as theirs and these covenants
would be excellent examples for countywide standards. The DOW
approves of this sketch plan and we see no major impact on wildlife
or critical habitat as this plan is submitted.
Thank you for sending me this sketch plan.
Sincerely,
/Lei-
Don
`eL
Don Crane
District Wildlife Manager
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Thomas M. Eve, Chairman • Louis F. Swift, Vice -Chairman • Arnold Salazar, Secretary
Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., Member • Eldon W. Cooper, Member • Rebecca L. Frank, Member
William R. Hegberg, Member • Mark LeValley, Member
