Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 PC Staff Report 10.14.1987REQUEST: • • PC 10/14/87 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) Rezoning of Parcel B of Parcel 2, Phase II, Town Center, Ranch at Roaring Fork OWNER: Stagecoach Associates, Ltd. ENGINEER: High Country Engineers LOCATION: A parcel located in Lot 2, T7S, R88W, of the 6th P.M.; more practically described as a parcel located approximately one (1) mile northeast of Carbondale off of State Highway 82. SITE DATA: A 2.9064 acre parcel to be rezoned to allow a 40 unit motel, managers residence, convenience store. WATER: Ranch at Roaring Fork Water System SEWER: Ranch at Roaring Fork Sewer System ACCESS: Frontage Road off of State Hwy 82 EXISTING ZONING: Planned/Development (P/D) I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The property in question is located within an area shown as a subdivided area within the Carbondale Urban Area of Influence. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The land is a fairly flat area that has been cleared of most vegetation as a result of past development activities. Presently, the parcel is vacant and surrounds the Relay Station Restaurant/Bar on three sides. B. Project Description: It is proposed to rezone a 2.9064 parcel to Planned Unit Development to allow for a 40 unit motel with a managers residence and a convenience store with gas pumps. It is proposed to utilize the existing Ranch at Roaring Fork water and sewer systems, per an agreement between the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association, Inc. and Stagecoach Associates, Ltd. Access would be off of the Highway 82 access road that provides access to the Relay Station and residential development to the west of the restaurant. C. History: In September of 1972, the Ranch at Roaring Fork Planned/Development was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Included in that approval was a Town Center parcel of 4.73 acres and a Parcel "D" unit of 2.60 acres. The final plat for these parcels was approved and signed by the Board of County Commissioners on August 18, 1975. According to the final plat and associated plans, the following uses were approved for each parcel: • • (1) Town Center: Six (6) shops, one (1) gas station, one (1) restaurant of 150 seats, and a 50 seat coffee shop. (2) "D" Units: 40 unit condo -hotel Subsequently, the restaurant was built and then split out of the Town Center parcel, resulting in a vacant 2.9064 acre parcel of vacant land. In 1980, the owner of the "D" Units parcel received approval for a 25 unit condominium, rather than the 40 unit condo -hotel. The conditions of approval were not met, and the P.U.D. approval was revoked. III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Zoning: The entire Ranch at Roaring Fork was, and technically still is, zoned Accomodations/Resort, Planned/Development, as provided for in the 1970 Zoning Resolution. This type of zoning was the predecessor to the present Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) designation. Some people are under the impression that the Ranch at Roaring Fork is a P.U.D., which is incorrect. A P/D was basically a combination of the various zone districts contained in the resolution at that time. This was in essence a multiple parcel rezoning into various residential single-family and multi -family, open space, and commercial accomodation/resort zones. In other words, rather than subdivide the larger tract into smaller tracts and rezone each tract separately; the rezoning was accomplished under the P/D provisions. A P.U.D., on the other hand, allows for the creation of multiple zone districts under one designation, but the zone district regulations within the P.U.D. do not necessarily have to be identical to the comparable zone districts in the present regulations. The proposed P.U.D. would technically change the uses allowed from the P/D designations of retail shops, gas station, and coffee shop to a P.U.D. allowing a motel and convenience store. The proposed P.U.D. text needs to be modified to read as follows: Accomodations/Resort 1. Uses, By Right: Up to 40 unit motel, a motel managers residence, and a retail grocery/convenience store with gasoline pumps. 2. Minimum Lot Area: 2.9064 acres. 3. Maximum Lot Coverage: Buildings, parking, and driveways = 40%; Open Space = 60% 4. Minimum Setback: (a) Front yard = 40 feet (b) Rear yard = 25 feet (c) Side yard = 25 feet 5. Maximum Building Height = 35 feet 6. Additional Requirements: (a) Off -Street Parking: Motel - at least one (1) space per motel unit Retail - one (1) space per 100 sq. ft. of retail floor area, exclusive of storage area Residential Unit - two (2) spaces per unit • • (b) One sign per commercial business shall be allowed, consistent with the specifications and requirements set forth in Section 5.07 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1979, as amended. (c) Where requirements of this zone district do not address a specific issue, the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1979, as amended, shall control. In addition, the P.U.D. Plan Map needs to be modified to show the zone district without topography, and showing: A. Location of commercial uses B. A table delineating type of uses proposed, and the acreage devoted to each, including open space C. Major internal circulation systems D. Water, sewer, telephone, and electrical easements B. Staff Comments: 1. Water and Sewer: Enclosed in the application is a statement by a licensed engineer that states that the applicant proposes to use the existing water and sewer systems, per the previously noted agreement between the homeowners association and the applicant. It is noted that if there is not adequate capacity available, the system(s) would be upgraded at the expense of the applicant. Enclosed is a letter from John Hochstedler, Ranch Manager, along with supporting documentation, noting an inadequacy of both the water and sewer systems (see Pages oJt--6 ). According to the letter, the Ranch water system is already using more water from their one well than they have a right to claim. Additional water rights will need to be obtained just to accomodate their existing needs. According to the studies attached to Mr. Hochstedler's letter, the sewage treatment plant's original design capacity has been reduced by approximately 28%, due to changes to the Colorado Department of Health wastewater treatment plant standards. The system was designed to utilize two different modes of treatment --extended aeration and contact stabilization. Each mode has a different treatment capacity under the present regulations; 43,300 gpd under an extended aeration mode, and 72,200 gpd under a contact stabilization mode. The present mode of operation is an extended aeration mode, due primarily to less need for operator attention, and less subject to upset. Based on the same study, the treatment plant is treating an estimated 50,150 gpd with the existing 129 units and restaurant. The same table notes 25 future units for a section of the development that is platted, but has not been developed any further. Adding these units and another estimated 80 motel units to the system, results in a need for a sewage treatment plant capable of treating an estimated 83,000 gpd. Under the present circumstances, the sewage treatment plant will need to be able to treat the following total gpd: 1. Existing 129 units @350 gpd = 45,150 gpd 2. Relay Station = 5,000 gpd 3. Stagecoach Assoc. @300 gpd = 12,000 gpd TOTAL = 62,150 gpd This total does not include the convenience store or managers unit in the calculation. They may account for up to an additional 700 gpd, if two toilets are provided for patrons of the store and the residence is calculated as a single-family dwelling. The existing plant does not, under the existing mode of operation, have the capacity to handle the additional demands placed on it by this application. It is also noted in the cover letter that the plant is not mechanically sound, and is in need of some major repair and maintenance. To accomodate the needs of this application, it appears that there needs to be expansion and repair of the existing sewage treatment plant, and the need for additional water rights and possible expansion of the water treatment facilities. Both of these issues will require either legal action in the courts (water rights), and permits for expansion of the facilities (water and sewer). To address these needs, it will be necessary for the applicant to negotiate with the homeowners association, per the previously noted agreement. This agreement will need to address, at a minimum: (1) Additional legal domestic water rights? (2) What repair and expansion needs there are for the sewage treatment plant, and possibly the water treatment system? (3) What additional permits will be necessary to accomplish these needs? (4) Who will be responsible for developing and paying for the engineering studies, legal fees, and capital improvements? One possible solution to the issue of financing would be the formation of a water and sewer special district. In the formation of a district, the overall needs of the development could be addressed, as well as providing a longer term financing vehicle for all parties involved. 2. Flood Plain: While the actual project site is outside of the 100 year flood plain, it appears that the existing sewage treatment plant is within the 100 year flood plain, and may be within the floodway of the Roaring Fork River. This will result in additional engineering studies and design to demonstrate that the sewage system will not raise the base flood elevation and that the system is designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters. 3. Common Open Space: The Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association has a large open space area that is used by the residents as a fishing and wildlife preserve. This land is private, and would not be available to people staying at the proposed motel without special permission of the homeowners association. At this time, the homeowners association is not willing to allow persons from the proposed complex to utilize the common area, and are concerned about policing the situation. Short of an agreement being reached on guest useage, the perimeter of the property on the west and south sides could have an 8 foot high security fence placed on it, with no trespassing signs posted, in addition to the proposed landscaping. A landscaping and fencing plan should be submitted to the homeowners association for review, and then subsequently submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for approval and acceptance as a part of the P.U.D. plan documents. The landscaping plan should be designed to visually buffer adjoining residents from the proposed complex, as well as providing physical separation from the residential and common areas. • • C. Citizens Comments: Enclosed are copies of petitions signed by property owners at the Ranch of Roaring Fork (see Pages a a - a2 a' ). In addition to the previously noted water and sewer facility limitations and common open space concerns, the following issues are noted: 1. The density is to high for the proposed development. 2. The building site is to close to an existing water line and may result in damage to the water lines, and possibly to the building foundation. The density issue seems to be tied more directly to water and sewer facility capabilities and proper screening than actual people impact. In other words, the density impact can be mitigated. The water line easement is a potential problem, and the proposed building site for the motel should be moved a minimum of ten (10) feet north of the easement. IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That the meeting with the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting; 2. That the proposed zoning is in general conformity with the recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated area of the County; 3. That the proposed land use will be compatible with the existing land uses in the nearby area provided proper mitigation is performed to mitigate impacts; 4. That other than the foregoing particulars, the requested zone change amendment and plan approval herein is in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan for Garfield County, Colorado, and does meet all requirements of the Zoning Resolution of Garfield County and, further, that the requested planned unit development is suitable and appropriate for the subject property, concerning the location, condition and circumstances of said property and is in the best of interest of the morals, order, health, safety, convenience and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. V. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant submit a signed agreement with the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association, prior to final P.U.D. approval by the Board of County Commissioners, addressing at a minimum the following issues: A. Additional legal domestic water rights. B. Needed improvements and repair to the sewage treatment plant; and if necessary, water treatment facilities. C. Responsible party for obtaining the necessary permits for expansion and repair of sewage treatment plant and associated facilities. D. Responsible party, or parties, to pay for engineering and legal fees and the capital improvements necessary to repair and/or expand the water and sewer facilities. 2. That a revised P.U.D. zone district text be submitted, noting the following: Accomodations/Resort 1. Uses, By Right: Up to 40 unit motel, a motel managers residence, and a retail grocery/convenience store with gasoline pumps 2. Minimum Lot Area: 2.9064 3. Maximum Lot Coverage: Buildings, parking, and driveways = 40%; Open Space = 60% 4. Minimum Setback: (a) Front yard = 40 feet (b) Rear yard = 25 feet (c) Side yard = 25 feet 5. Maximum Building Height = 35 feet 6. Additional Requirements: (a) Off -Street Parking: Motel - at least one (1) space per motel unit Retail - one (1) space per 100 sq. ft. of retail floor area, exclusive of storage area Residential Unit - two (2) spaces per unit (b) One sign per commercial business shall be allowed, consistent with the specifications and requirements set forth in Section 5.07 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1979, as amended. (c) Where requirements of this zone district do not address a specific issue, the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1979, as amended, shall control. 3. That a revised P.U.D. plan be submitted showing the following: A. Location of commercial uses, including a minimum of ten (10) feet of separation between any building and water or sewer easement. B. A table delineating uses, and acreage devoted to each. C. Major internal circulation system. D. Water, sewer, telephone, and electrical easements. 4. That a landscaping plan be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for approval prior to final P.U.D. approval, and after review by the Board of Directors of the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association. The landscape plan shall show, at a minimum scale of 1" = 50 feet, the following: A. Tabulation of the square footage of all landscaped areas. B. Identification by location and type of plant within each planting area. No tree planted shall have an average caliper of two and one-half (2-1/2) inches measure one (1) foot from ground level, and conifers shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in height. C. List of botanical and common names of all plants, with the quantity of each and their respective container size. D. Clearly portray irrigation system to maintain • �9N landscaping.� 5h�($, �f• 4/9A steam ��rrCe 44,i5¢�� 40, -)x cryc PIA"")/ [,7-f- self" Further, that the completion of the landscaping plan must be done prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy; and that the applicant shall agree to maintain the landscaped areas in a weed -free condition and replace, within six (6) months, any tree, scrub or plant which, due to accident, damage, disease, or other cause, that fails to show healthy growth. Garfield County Planning Department Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81623 OCT 05 1987 GARFIELD COUNTY L? The following undersigned petition the Planning & Zoning Department and the Garfield County Commissioners to deny rezoning of application for PUD on Parcel B Phase II (property owner Stagecoach Ltd. a Colorado Corp./John Wix General Partner). The Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association recognize the following points listed below as a tremendous impact to our community and original PUD, therefore all items below should be resolved before rezoning or new PUD is considered. Sewer & Water Service To date neither the water or sewer facilities have the capacity to service the original PUD of 192 units, without expansion of water and sewer treatment. Density 40 units can be built by the adjoining owner. If this PUD for an additional 40 units is allowed the impact of 80 units within an approximate 5 acre area is unacceptable. Administrative Because of the appeal of our common grounds and wildlife preserve, tresspassing is hard to control. The guests from an additional 40 units would impact our common grounds and wildlife preserve further adding tremendous cost and manpower in controlling tresspassers. Building site The building site is too close to water easement. Because of the unstable soil any ditching over the water main will cause considerable cave ins and possible damage to building footers. Hurry -up development in the past created legal problems that still have not been resolved and continue to plague the Association. Let's do it right and resolve the above matters before not after rezoning. • Signed, Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Name Address Phone Rodney H. Jacobs Lot 36, 0108 Surrey 925-2640 Rodney H. Jacobs Lot 39, 0166 Surrey Rodney H. Jacobs Lot 64 Rodney H. Jacobs Lot 66 II 11 Garfield County Planning Department Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81623 r OCT 06 1987 GARFIELD COUNTY The following undersigned petition the Planning & Zoning Department and the Garfield County Commissioners to deny rezoning of application for PUD on Parcel B Phase II (property owner Stagecoach Ltd. a Colorado Corp./John Wix General Partner). The Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association recognize the following points listed below as a tremendous impact to our community and original PUD, therefore all items below should be resolved before rezoning or new PUD is considered. Sewer & Water Service To date neither the water or sewer facilities have the capacity to service the original PUD of 192 units, without expansion of water and sewer treatment. Density 40 units can be built by the adjoining owner. If this PUD for an additional 40 units is allowed the impact of 80 units within an approximate 5 acre area is unacceptable. Administrative Because of the appeal of our common grounds and wildlife preserve, tresspassing is hard to control. The guests from an additional 40 units would impact our common grounds and wildlife preserve further adding tremendous cost and manpower in controlling tresspassers. Building site The building site is too close to water easement. Because of the unstable sail any ditching over the water main will cause considerable cave ins and possible damage to building footers. Hurry -up development in the past created legal problems that still have not been resolved and continue to plague the Association. Let's do it right and resolve the above matters before not after rezoning. Signed, Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Name Address 6b6 Co -51C,(I Phone 9'1.5 2- Garfield County Planning Department Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81623 j r ;;-1 II OCT 061987 The following undersigned petition the Planning & Zoning Department and the Garfield County Commissioners to deny rezoning of application for PUD on Parcel B Phase II (property owner Stagecoach Ltd. a Colorado Corp./John Wix General Partner). The Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association recognize the following points listed below as a tremendous impact to our community and original PUD, therefore all items below should be resolved before rezoning or new PUD is considered. Sewer & Water Service To date neither the water or sewer facilities have the capacity to service the original PUD of 192 units, without expansion of water and sewer treatment. Density 40 units can be built by the adjoining owner. If this PUD for an additional 40 units is allowed the impact of 80 units within an approximate 5 acre area is unacceptable. Administrative Because of the appeal of our common grounds and wildlife preserve, tresspassing is hard to control. The guests from an additional 40 units would impact our common grounds and wildlife preserve further adding tremendous cost and manpower- in controlling tresspassers. Building site The building site is too close to water easement. Because of the unstable soil any ditching over the water main will cause considerable cave ins and possible damage to building footers. Hurry -up development in the past created legal problems that still have not been resolved and continue to plague the Association. Let's do it right and resolve the above matters before not after rezoning. Signed, Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Name Address Phone Garfield County Planning Department Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81623 OCT 07 1987 �L ._ GARFIELD COUNTY The following undersigned petition the Planning & Zoning Department and the Garfield County Commissioners to deny rezoning of application for PUD on Parcel B Phase II (property owner Stagecoach Ltd. a Colorado Corp./John Wix General Partner). The Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association recognize the following points listed below as a tremendous impact to our community and original PUD, therefore all items below should be resolved before rezoning or new PUD is considered. Sewer & Water Service To date neither the water or sewer facilities have the capacity to service the original PUD of 192 units, without expansion of water and sewer treatment. Density 40 units can be built by the adjoining owner. If this PUD for an additional 40 units is allowed the impact of 80 units within an approximate 5 acre area is unacceptable. Administrative Because of the appeal of our common grounds and wildlife preserve, tresspassing is hard to control. The guests from an additional 40 units would impact our common grounds and wildlife preserve further adding tremendous cost and manpower in controlling tresspassers. Building site The building site is too close to water easement. Because of the unstable soil any ditching over the water main will cause considerable cave ins and possible damage to building footers. Hurry -up development in the past created legal problems that still have not been resolved and continue to plague the Association. Let's do it right and resolve the above matters before not after rezoning. Signed, Ranch at R oaring Fork Homeowners Name Address gk 9/3 Phone