Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 Staff Report PC 3.10.04PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS PCO3llOlO4 FJ 1) Amend Comprehensive Plan designation from Low Density Residential to General Commercial; and 2) Rezone from AgriculturaU ResidentiaU Rural Density (ARRD) to Commercial Limited (CL) 3 P Properties, LLC (Pine Stone) Capitol Construction, LLC Steven Dawson / Kathrine Zyetz Scott Fenske (Comp Plan only) Davis Farrar, Western Slope Consulting Lower Cattle Creek Basin ARRD ARRD, CL, and Open Space (BLM) REOUEST APPLICANT(S) REPRESENTATIVE PROPERTY LOCATION EXISTING ZONING AD.IACENT ZONING ?393-07 4-l Tox Exenp Gorf i e Ld Nfln au) I\ PorceT-€ -t -\@ \t{ \za.rsre\\; \eo,.."r N \ 3s.0eE A : [Photo on the left outlines subject properties in blue. Photo on the right shows existing zoning of the area.l I. BACKGROUND On November 12,2003, the Planning Commission heard a request by 3P Properties, LLC and Capitol Construction, LLC to rezone their properties from ARRD to CL. Staff recommended denial of the applications because they would be in conflict with the land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) of Low Density Residential and only the Capitol Construction, LLC property was contiguous with a commercially zoned property, thereby resulting in a spot zoning issue for the 3P Properties property which is illegal. The Planning Commission ultimately felt that because the two requests directly conflicted with the Comprehensive Plan, the Applicant should address amending the Plan prior to addressing the rezoning issue. As a result, the Planning Commission continued the hearing to January t4th which was continued a second time to March 10th. Now there are two additional parties listed as Applicants wishing to amend the land use designation of the Plan (the Fenske property and the Dawson I Zyetz property) and one wishing to rezone their property from ARRD to CL (the Dawson lZyetz property). [As a side note, now that the Dawson / Zyetz property is included, the spot zoning issue that directly affected the 3P Properties property doesn't apply. However, a rezoning of the 3P Properties property without the Dawson I Zyetz property would be spot zoning.l As a matter of formality, the Planning Commission may open a published public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for all four properties. Subsequently, the Planning Commission may reopen a continued public meeting on the rezoning issue of 3P Properties and Capitol Construction which should now also include the new Applicant wishing to rezone: the Dawson I Zyetz property. II. THE REQUEST Four properties in the lower Cattle Creek area request the Planning Commission amend the Plan designations of their properties from [.ow Density Residential to General Commercial. The same properties request the Planning Commission recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners to rezone the properties from Agricultural /Residential /Rural Density (ARRD) to Commercial Limited (CL). The Applicants believe the amendment and rezoning are warranted due to changes in the character of the area and that a natural geographic feature will stop any further rezoning efforts or "commercial creep" up Cattle Creek. The image above shows the subject properties. 151 A )- ,or.") Scott Fcnske ( I .67 ac.) Capilol Conslruction 12.9 ac.) 3 P Propcrliv^s (-l ac.) Dan'sort 7,y'ctt.123 ac.) (@ III. STAFF COMMENTS The Colorado Revised Statutes establish the standards of review for rezoning land in the county. The standards depend on whether the proposed rezoning is in compliance with the Plan. If so, the proposed rezoning need only bear a reasonable relationship to the general welfare of the community. If the rezoning is in conflict with the Plan, the Applicant generally needs to show either 1) that an error was made in establishing the current zoning, or 2) that there has been a change in the conditions of the neighborhood that supports the requested zone change. At present, the subject properties are designated as [.ow Density Residential (LDR) in the Plan which directly conflicts with the Commercial Limited zone district sought for three of the four properties. As a result of this conflict, the properties propose to amend the Plan designation to General Commercial so that the proposed zone districts would be consistent with a newly amended Plan. Staff will address the request to amend the Plan first, followed by the request to rezone the properties. A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment The subject properties are located in Study Area 1 of the Plan. The Applicants wish to amend the designation in the Plan from "Low Density Residential" (which suggests a residential development of the area at 10 acres per dwelling unit) to General Commercial which suggests a very wide variety of commercial uses including retail operations and service oriented businesses. The Plan itself provides some guidance for reviewing an amendment to a designation by reviewing the Goals / Objectives / Policies / Programs in Section Itr and the Methodology in Section IV. The following is a review of these two components of the Plan. 1) Goals / Obiectives / Policies for Commercial Development in Garfield Countv The Plan contains goals, objectives, and policies regarding when and how commercial development is to be located in the unincorporated portions of the county. Broad issues are discussed in the Plan which include discouraging strip commercial development, concerns about access and traffic congestion, signage, infrastructure, and being sensitive to changing land use patterns. Goals include directing future commercial development to interchanges in the westem portions of the county, with sensitivity to transportation access and convenience. Objectives specify criteria that are helpful in a review process. A number of Objectives are aimed towards commercial uses and are applicable to this application: Objective 4.2: To ensure that commercial and industrial developments are cornpatible with adjacent land uses and mitigate impacts identified during the plan review process. Response While there are no specific commercial developments proposed for the subject areas, there are two "commercial-like operations" (Capitol Construction, LLC and 3P Properties, LLC) which are contemplated as Special Uses in the ARRD Zone District which have been reviewed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners with Special Use Permits. In general, these uses were approved primarily because 1) they are alreadycontemplated in the ARRD zoning, and 2) they required a review by the Planning Staff and the Board of County Commissioners who were able to place certain conditions on the proposals to mitigate the impacts to the surrounding uses that are related to hours of operation, frequency and intensity of traffic, lighting, noise, dust, fumes, etc. Also note, the Board also has the authority to deny the request based on these issues. The propertybelow and adjacent to the Capitol Construction property (the Morris Property) was recently rezoned basically due to the fact that it was a long standing commercial / light industrial use that had existed prior to zoning. The Plan designation was subsequently changed to be consistent with the long time existing use and the new zoning designation. The impacts that are generated from this operation or any other future operation on the Morris property will not be reviewed by the county in terms of hours of operation, frequency and intensity of traffic, lighting, noise, dust, fumes as they are uses by right in the CL zone district. As one travels up Cattle Creek Road from Highway 82, the zoning is commercial (Rudd / Funland / Morris), then the zoning transitions into uses permitted via Special Use Permits in the ARRD zone district (Capitol Construction and 3 P Properties), then into the Raymond property which is in violation of the ARRD zoning as an illegal stone yard. Therefore, once you get past the transitional area containing the subject properties, the zoning and the (legal permitted uses) all revert back to uses by right which includes agricultural / rural / residential uses as you continue on up the Cattle Creek drainage into western Missouri Heights. (The map presented below shows the pink colored parcels as the transition zone that buffers the upper properties zone ARRD from the lower properties zoned CL.) 4 Staff finds that the change in character of the properties have been achieved either by corrective zoning to allow a non-conforming property to exist in proper zoning or by way of Special Use Permits which serve as a very valuable "transition zone" between high impact commercial uses at the bottom of the drainage and the very different agricultural / rural / residential uses above the subject properties. The inherent value in this transition zone is the fact that the impacts related to the more commercialJike uses are regulated by the county. Again, Special Use Permits cannot be simply considered stepping stones to commercial zoning. If these properties are redesignated to CG in the Plan and subsequently rezoned to CL, then the commercial creep will only continue up the drainage with no ability to mitigate or regulate impacts to the county and on neighboring properties. Lastly, Staff finds the so called topographic "pinch point" suggested by the Applicant that would serve to effectively stop this commercial creep 1) does not physically exist and, 2) more importantly, does not address the issue of adjacency. Over several site visits to the area, Staff traveled up and down Cattle Creek Road looking for this feature and was unable to discern any such feature. There is no outstanding physical feature that separates the upper cattle creek valley from the lower valley. The drainage is a fairly wide meandering valley floor whose uses are very agricultural in low density residential uses. A more important legal question that the "pinch point" does not address is that of "adjacency" or properties that are contiguous. In other words, in order to be eligible to request a rezoning, a property must show that it is adjacent to commercially zoned property. If not, the action is considered spot zoning which is illegal. [It should be noted, while the Dawson property (separating Capitol Construction from 3 P Properties) is one of the subject properties wishing to rezone, it remains a rural residential use. As such, if it was not wishing to rezone, the 3P Properties property would not be eligible due to the spot zone issue.l Objective 4.4: Encourage the location of commercial development in appropriate areas that maximizes convenience to County residents. Staff finds that the location of commercial development in the lower Cattle Creek drainage is accessible to only some of the county residents. In general, Staff agrees that the subject area is located just off of State Highway 82 which is well traveled by county residents. However, commercial development in this area will result in an "end-destination" travel mode. A location that would truly maximize convenience to more county residents would be if the commercial area were located nearer to already established commercial areas around the county's jurisdictions so that those trips of the county residents were better served by having the commercial opportunities in one area rather than having to travel a good distance on State Highway 82 which may be severely inconvenient for county residents living in the western portion of the county. Objective 4.5: Ensure that commercinl development is conducive to safe and fficient trafficflow, reduces vehicular movements and encourages alternate transportation modes and the use of mass transit, Staff finds that additional commercial development on CR 113 will severelyexacerbate an existing traffic problem at the intersection of CR 113 to the intersection CR 110, the State Highway 82 Frontage Roads (east and west) and State Highway 82 at the bottom of the Cattle Creek drainage. All four of the subject properties maintain access from CR 1 13 and will impact this intersection. The most direct traffic flow into the county road system serving Garfield County is to travel down CR 113 to the intersection CR 110, the State Highway 82 Frontage Roads (east and west) and State Highway 82 at the bottom of the Cattle Creek drainage. Rezoning these properties will undoubtedly result in a significant traffic impact at an already problematic intersection. In redesignating these properties to GC then subsequently rezoning these properties to CL, the most intense possible use allowed in the CL zoning must be considered in order to realistically understand what could occur there and what those trips might look like. It is virtually impossible to imagine the exact number of trips that a particular commercial operation might generate as they could vary substantially from a mini-storage use to a restaurant / gas station / hotel, motel, lodge. etc. This uncertainty places the county in a difficult position regarding the effective management of traffic and impacts to the intersection of State Highway 82. This is a significant issue for the County because the CDOT State Highway Access Code requires intersection improvements when 2O7o or greater increases in traffic volumes occur onto state roads. At present, Staff recently completed a Traffic Study with the Road and Bridge Department which determined the average daily vehicle count of Garfield County Roads. The data in this study determined that 812 average daily trips were counted on CR 1 13 at the intersection with CR 1 10 and presumably State Highway 82. As a result, commercial development that produces at least 162 average daily trips a day will represent a ZOVo increase to the existing traffic and thereby requiring improvements to Highway 82. As a matter of background, the State Highway Access Code Section 2.6(6) Changes in [.and Use and Access Use, contains the following language: Vehicular use and operation of local roads where they connect to (access) a state highway is the responsibility of the aopropriate local authoritlt. The local authority shouldmaintain such state highway access locations in conformance with the Code to the extentfeasible and practicable within statutory and public funding limitations. The local authority may fund any necessary improvements by obtaining contributions from the primary users of the access or as offsite subdivision improvements necessary for the public safety pursuant to sections 30-28-133 and 133.1, C.R.S., and sections 31-23-201 to 227, C.ft.S., or other available public funds and local requirements. 6 Ultimately, this means Garfield County (the "appropriate local authority'') remains responsible for funding the improvements to the intersection of CR I 13 / CR 1 10 and Highway 82 because a rezoning action does not allow the county to exact traffic impact fees. Other land use actions that would allow the County to require the Applicant to fund the improvements required due to their impacts include Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, and Special Use Permits. It should be noted, the subject properties are located in Traffic Study Area 11 (the most expensive of fee areas) which is an impact fee mechanism that only applies to residential development as part of a subdivision. As such, this commercial development would not be required to pay any traffic impact fees. Because of the current limited regulatory mechanisms in place, Staff believes rezoning this property to CL will significantly negatively impact the County's ability to maintain the existing integrity of the intersection of CR 1 13 and State Highw ay 82 at the bottom of the Cattle Creek drainage. As a result, the County will be burdened with the responsibility for funding all improvements to this intersection due to this commercial growth in this location and further indicates the inappropriateness of additional rezoning of property in this area. Staff agrees with the Applicant, in that, the Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) currently provides bus service to the intersection of Highway 82 and CR 1 l3 for travelers going east and west on Highway 82. However, Staff finds that additional commercial development on CR 1 13 will severely exacerbate an existing traffic problem at the subject intersection and will not result in the reduction of vehicular movements. Objective 4.6: Ensure that the type, size and scope of industri.al and commercinl development are consistent with the long-term land use objectives of the county. This objective speaks directly to specific project development which cannot be discussed here because there is no specific development proposed outside of the existing special uses whose operations may or may not comply with the underlying uses by right in the CL zone district. The Plan itself suggests the long-term land use objective of the subject area is to develop in a low density residential manner. The proposal directly conflicts with the suggested designation. Objective 4.7: Ensure that Zoning Regulations addressing Commercial and.Industrial uses reflect the changing land use patterns and demographics of the County and encourage the farther diversification of the County's economy. The Applicant suggests that Special Use Permits change the characteristics of an area so significantly that the next logical step is to rezone the property. In this way, the Special Use Permit becomes the first step to rezoning because it effects the "changing land use patterns and demographics of the county and encourages the further diversification of the county's economy. Staff agrees that emerging land use patterns change for a variety of reasons and that the county does encourage a diversified economic base. However, while commercially zoned land allows for diversification, locating it anywhere doe not make for good planning. That is the inherent value and the very intent of the Special Use Permit because it allows flexibility in zoning to accommodate a wide variety of uses but not to such a degree that they are unregulated. Policy 4.1: Commercial development will be located in areas where existing infrastructure (water and wastewater facilities) are cunently available. At present, there are no central water or wastewater facilities in the area. It should be noted, the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District potentially has the ability to extend service to this area. In fact, the potable water tank approved for Sanders Ranch (ust opposite Highway 82) is located on a property owned by Rudd at the mouth of the Cattle Creek drainage. This is an important note because while no facilities exist today which might suggest that the associated commercial uses would be limited, service to allow much more intense commercial growth / development could potentially be available at a later date. Visual Corridor Map According to the "Visual Corridor, Study Areas 1,2 & 3" map in the Comprehensive Plan, the subject properties, as well as the CR 1 13 corridor from Highway 82 to the intersection of CR 112, is located within an identified view-shed, which encourages special attention be given to visual impacts from any development proposal. 2) The Methodoloev (Section IV) The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, which the properties wish to amend, was created using a "suitability analysis" which is a tool commonly used to determine the "fitness" of a particular property I place for a variety of land uses based on ecological inventories, emerging land use trends, local jurisdictional goals and policies, goals and objectives of the county, citizen concerns, and socioeconomic factors. As a result of the suitability analysis, the subject area was envisioned to develop as Low Density Residential. The Applicant has not proposed any justification why the original designation of the property (site constraints analysis) has changed according to the methodology in the Plan. B. Rezonins Request from ARRD to CL As mentioned above, the Colorado Revised Statutes establish the standards of review for rezoning land in the county. The standards depend on whether the proposed rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). If so, the proposed rezoning need only bear a reasonable relationship to the general welfare of the community. If the rezoning is in conflict with the Plan, the Applicant generally needs to show either that 1) an error was made in establishing the current zoning, or 2) that there has been a change in the conditions of the neighborhood that supports the requested zone change. Based on the analysis provided above, Staff finds the proposed amendment to the Plan designation is not warranted; as a result, the rezoning request needs to demonstrate that 1) an error was made in establishing the current zoning, or 2) that there has been a change in the conditions of the neighborhood that supports the requested zone change. Staff offers the following thoughts in addition to the previously provided information: Error in Zonins The current zoning of ARRD for all four properties was originally established in the early 1970's, when the area was originally zoned based on uses that existed at the time on the ground. ln this case, the subject properties were zoned residential due to their rural residential character further being located a great distance from any urban / incorporated area. Staffbelieves this original zoning of the subject property was not done in eror. Chanee in Conditions of the Neiehborhood The Applicant believes the conditions of the area have changed enough so that the existing uses that define the area are much more "commercial" in nature so that the area should be eligible to rezone to Commercial Limited. The application contains aerial photos that show changes to some of the properties over time. Staff agrees the nature of some of the properties have changed enough that they have been rezoned to CL which include the Rudd, Funland, and Morris properties. However, Staff does not agree that the area has changed so drastically to warrant continued "commercial creep" up the Cattle Creek drainage farther and farther away from the existing commercially zoned properties. Further, the properties that have a more "commercial" characteristic to them are the result of either a special use permit or are current zoning violations. So, in this view, Staff is unconvinced that special use permits and zoning violations do not set the stage or lend validity to the notion that conditions have changed to warrant a rezoning to a completely contrasting zone district. Staff believes the conditions or characteristics of the area, while they have change somewhat, have not changed so significantly to warrant a rezoning of the subject properties. Please refer back to the comments provided in the Comprehensive Plan amendment portion of this memo. The Applicant finds that a "commercial like" SUP can change a property or area so significantly that it sets the stage for rezoning to a more intense commercial use. This is a very serious issue that deserves some attention. An SUP is not a backdoor way to alter zoning. It is a use, contemplated in a certain zone district that may occur if negative impacts are properly mitigated as a result of a site plan analysis and an approval by the BOCC. In this way, an SUP is very different from allowing a new zone district where all the "by right uses" are as intense or more intense that the SUP without any review in order to mitigate any impacts. Then, compound this issue by allowing multiple by right commercial uses on a single property without any review. Based on this, Staff does not agree that the circumstances have changes so significantly that this area should develop commercially. Imagine the uncontrolled impacts to traffic and the continued threat of commercial creep up Cattle Creek drainage. Staff does not support the notion that changed conditions based on a special use permit are 9 necessarily grounds for a rezoning for the following reasons: 1) the special use has already been contemplated a "possible" use in a zone district so long as negative impacts are eithereliminated or mitigated to a point so that the special use is not incompatible with the surrounding uses which are presumably uses allowed by right in that particular zone district; and 2) special uses may be conditioned and are closely regulated (site plan reviews) in order to ensure negative impacts are mitigated. Rezoning from ARRD to Commercial Limited is a very significant change in that it is not incremental. There are drastically different uses allowed under the CL zoning than under the ARRD zoning in terms of impacts that will not be regulated at all. [n other words, the uses allowed by right change drarnatically when a property is rezoned from ARRD to CL. IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1) That all applicable regulations regarding azonedistrict amendment have been complied with including, but not limited to, Section 10.00 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 2) That the proposed amendment to the Land Use Designations Map of the Comprehensive Plan is not consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of Section Itr and Methodology of Section IV of the Comprehensive Plan. 3) That the conditions ofthe neighborhood have not changed to such a degree to support the requested zone change from ARRD to CL. 4) The proposed rezoning from ARRD to CL is inconsistent with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000. 5) That the proposed amendment to the Land Use Designations Map of the Comprehensive Plan is not in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare of citizens of Garfield County. 6) That the proposed rezoning from ARRD to CL is not in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare of citizens of Garfield County. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FORAMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION With all of the above factors taken into consideration, Staff recommends denial of the application for an amendment to the Proposed land Use Designation Map of the Comprehensive Plan from Low Density Residential to General Commercial for all four subject properties. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ZONE DISTRICT AMENDMENT REQUEST With all of the above factors taken into consideration, Staff recommends denial of the application for rezoning the 3 P Properties (Pine Stone) property, Capitol Construction 10 property, Steven Dawson / Kathrine Zyetzproperty from ARRD to CL finding that the that there has not been a change significant enough in the conditions of the neighborhood that supports the requested zone change. VII. RECOMMENDEDMOTIONS Because there are two separate requests, the Planning Commission should make a motion on the amendment request to the Comprehensive Plan prior to making a motion on the question to rezone the properties. 11