Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 04.05.1999• • PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS BOCC 12/8/97 1/5/98 2/9/98 4/5/91 REQUEST: Planned Unit Development modification for Preshana Farms PUD. APPLICANT: Henry & Lana Trettin; Bruce Ross PLANNER: Land Design Partnership LOCATION: A tract of land located in Section 31, T7S, R87W of the 6th P.M.; located approximately three (3) miles east of Carbondale near Catherine's Store. SITE DATA: 57.889 Acres WATER: Shared well SEWER: Centralized treatment facility ACCESS: Direct access to County Road 100 EXISTING ZONING: PUD ADJACENT ZONING: North; South: A/R/RD East: C/L West: PUD I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject tract is identified by the Comprehensive Plan within the Low Density Residential (10+ acres/dwelling unit), Proposed Land Use District. However, the tract is the site of a previously approved Planned Unit Development with a gross density of 1.2 acres per dwelling unit. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The subject tract is 57.889 acres in size, located approximately three (3) miles east of Carbondale along County Road 100. The northern perimeter is bounded by State Highway 82 and bordered on the west by Ranch at Roaring Fork. • • The tract slopes gently toward the Roaring Fork River and a portion of the tract is identified within the floodplain of Blue Creek, a tributary to the Roaring Fork. Existing improvements include a primary residence, employee housing and indoor and outdoor equestrian facilities, with polo grounds. Adjacent Land Uses: The subject tract is in an area of varying land uses whereas Ranch at Roaring Fork PUD is located west of the tract, Catherine's Store is located east, with agricultural land uses adjacent to the east, south and north, across State Highway 82. C. Development Proposal: The applicant proposes to modify an earlier PUD approval authorizing 38 dwelling units and 10 lodging units within a bed and breakfast, with 30.6 acres of open space (gross density 0.66 dwelling units/acre). The current application proposes a total of 50 single family dwelling units and 4 employee units with 22.4 acres of open space (gross density of 0.93 dwelling units/acre). III REITLEW AGENCY/PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Town of Carbondale: The Town Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and reminds Garfield County of its Proposed Density Districts contained within the Comprehensive Plan and the vis'on of locating more dense developments closer to urban cores. See letter, pages +gyp . Mid -Valley Metropolitan District: States that negotiations are underway with the St. Finnbar property owners, as well as regional property owners for potential inclusion within the District, which, if included in the District, should assist in enhancing water quality. See letter, pages 11.12.. . C. Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District: States access is adequate for fire equipment; notes that the fire flows would be meet the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and suggests that fire hydrants should be designed to meet the Code; impact fees must also be paid prior to recordation of the Final Plat. See letter, page �3 • . D. Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District: Notes concerns for erosion and revegetation using weed -free seed; animal control; maintenance of irrigation ditches; impact to wetlands; irrigation ditches and water rights with irrigation water delivered utilizing a raw water delivery system within the PUD; and notes concern for application of pesticides and herbicides that may affect water quality, reques ing that monitoring wells be utilized to gauge water quality. See letter, pages / 4S E. Division of Wildlife: Notes that many mammals and waterfowl utilize the property, especially within the riparian areas and stresses the need for allowing movement through the PUD for wildlife; stresses the need for dog control and makes several f • recomme dations concerning mitigation of impacts to wildlife. See letter, pages — Garfield County Attorney's Office: Identifies concern for the proposed centralized sewage treatment plant, recommending the system be contained within a special district controlled by those served by the treatment plant, which should be developed prior to preliminary plan application; suggests an engineering analysis indicate capacity of the proposed treatment plant and ability to serve the development; notes the plan should provide emergency access; the developers should show how the development would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; the homeowners should be the principal beneficiaries of the open space; suggests the applicants seek an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that would show conformity with the proposed density for the area; a phasing plan must be firmly identified; should resolve issues concerning open space and inclusion of the sewage tre tment plant into the Mid -Valley Metropolitan District. See letter, pages 1 Tv I . G. Response to County Attorney's Letter from Land Design Partnership: Addresses Don DeFord's letter, explaining in further detail the issues discussed. See letter, pages 26 •�i� H. Letter from Zancanella and Associates. dated November 19. 1997: Explains in further� detail the legal and physical water supply for the PUD. See letter, pages A3 • I. Letter from Jerry and Vicki Garwood_ dated November 21, 1997: States their opposition to the PUD modifications, due to environmental and infrastructural concerns. See letter, pane 3 2. . IV MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Existing Planned Unit Development: The subject tract was approved for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), in 1989. At that time, the PUD proposed a total of 38 single family dwelling units, further divided into a Single Family District containing 15 units, a Cluster District of patio homes containing 11 units, and 10 employee units within the Equestrian District. A bed and breakfast, with capacity for 10 guests, and two additional dwelling units for the owner/manager of the development were approved for the Service Residential District. See land use breakdown maps and text, pages 3,35. The development was proposed to utilize a centralized equestrian facility and associated open space, which would also provide a buffer from State Highway 82. Water supply for the PUD was proposed to be provided by the Ranch at Roaring Fork's existing supply and capacity, or if no agreement could be reached, the water supply would be developed internally. Wastewater was proposed to be treated by the Ranch at Roaring Fork system also, which would have required modifications to the facility to provide the extra capacity. No service agreement was ever reached. B. Proposed Modifications to the PUD: The modifications seek to increase the residential density of the property, proposing a total of 54 dwelling units, placing 20 single family dwelling units within the R20 District and 30 single family units within the R10 District. Four additional dwelling units would be allowed within the Equestrian Center District, proposing three (3) employee units and an owner's/manager's residence. See land use breakdown maps and text, pages 34.34 The equestrian facilities would initially be owned by the applicant. However, according to the applicant's market research, apparently there would not be a desire for the homeowners to own the equestrian facility, therefore the applicant would continue to own it with the option to divest the facility in the future. Commensurate with this divestiture is the option to convert the remaining open space, which would be owned by the homeowners, into a par -3, executive golf course. It is not clear whether this provision would require the land encompassing the equestrian facilities. The physical water supply is proposed to be developed on-site, from groundwater contained within the Roaring Fork River alluvium, with a legal supply backed by Basalt Water Conservancy District contracts. Wastewater is proposed to be treated by a future centralized treatment plant, which would also serve additional development envisioned for the area. While this proposed treatment facility has received site application approval by Garfield County, there is no firm mechanism to ensure its completion and inclusion within the Mid -Valley Metropolitan District. In fact, the facility would be built to serve another contemplated subdivision (St. Finnbar), south of the Preshana site, and an affirmative decision in this matter would likely force development of the other property. Staff submits this situation defeats the notion of integrated planning, as the properties are not being considered together, yet would be tied together by proposed infrastructure. C. Staff Analysis: The land use concept is considered to be "very similar" to the approved PUD. However, based on a review of the approved PUD and the proposed modifications, staff cannot support that position. A side-by-side comparison follows: Single Family Dwellings Employee Housing Lodging Units Open Space (Open Space + Equestrian) Gross Density Approved 38 10 10 40.8 Acres 0.66 units/acre Modified % Change 51 34% increase 3 70% decrease 0 100% decrease 31.6 Acres 22.5% decrease 0.93 units/acre 41% increase Even if the bed and breakfast lodging units were allocated to single family dwelling units, the open space between the approved and modified proposals still diminishes, • simply because more land would be developed. This comparison can be made graphically by viewing the maps on pages 30, 3 7 According to the application, Preshana Farms is considered to be "one of the premiere equestrian facilities in Colorado." Although both proposals are in excess of the 25% open space requirement, if the equestrian values of the property are to be maintained, then reducing the open space would only serve to diminish the equestrian values. Further, the provision for an executive golf course would likely extinguish all equestrian activities, which currently seem to be a selling point for the property. V RECOMMENDATION This modification is reviewed consistent with Section 4.12 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, particularly, Section 4.12.03(2), whereas: No substantial modifications, removal or release of the provisions of the Plan by the County shall be permitted except upon a finding by the County, following a public hearing called and held in accordance with the provisions of Section 24-67-104, C.R.S., that the modification, removal or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire PUD, does not affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the PUD, or the public interest, and is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. It is this staffs opinion that the approval of the proposed modifications to the existing PUD plan would not be consistent with "the efficient development and preservation of the entire PUD," as required by regulations. Staff maintains, that approval of this request would "confer a special benefit upon [a] person" for the simple fact that the applicants' requested density increase results in Garfield County subsidizing the equestrian facilities, without any guarantee whatsoever that the equestrian facilities would remain operational. Additionally, the modifications to the PUD are.not in the public interest, as the Goals of the Comprehensive Plan would not be met in the following areas: Housing: The employee housing (considered to be "affordable") would decrease from 10 units to 3 units, with the remaining housing priced to appeal to the upper -range of the housing market; the increased density and lot sizes results in the increased conversion of open space; Transportation: the increased density in the PUD will contribute to more traffic congestion on County Road 100 and State Highway 82; Commercial: The viability of the equestrian facilities currently occupying the site is not ensured and could readily be replaced by a less than exclusive golf operation, which may be even more of a commercial liability than the equestrian facilities; Recreation and Open Space: It would seem that initial sales within the PUD would be marketed to people who would be interested in utilizing the equestrian facilities and associated open spaces; however, these could be extinguished at the whim of the owner of the equestrian facilities, with the resulting golf course having absolutely no relationship to the former recreational and open space uses; Agriculture: A golf course would not, in any fashion, resemble the current equestrian and agricultural uses of the property; Water and Sewer Services: At this time, no wastewater services are ensured for either the new or old PUD; Natural Resource Extraction: The property very obviously overlies the alluvium of the Roaring Fork Valley and the platting and development of the property would result in losing, the aggregate resources underlying the property; Urban Areas of Influence: Although the site is not within the statutory urban area of influence of the Town of Carbondale, the Town has commented that the development encourages sprawl and is the antithesis of the Comprehensive Plan for Study Area I. Staff submits further that the provision for a par -3 golf course is incompatible with the equestrian uses of the PLD, which violates Section 4.06 of the PUD regulations. Based on many of these reasons, staff recommended to the Planning Commission denial of the PUD modifications. Contrary to this recommendation, the Planning Commission, with a vote of 5- 2, recommends approval of the modifications pursuant to the following, conditions: 1] That the application conform to all current Planned Unit Development requirements and subdivision requirements concerning limitations on dogs and the "Aspen Glen" wood stove revelations. 2] That there shall be no more than 47 single family dwelling units and no more than three (3) employee housing units. 3] That all requirements contained in Don DeFord's letter shall be met, specifically the sewage disposal requirements. Depending on the Board's disposition in this matter, the Board is required to make specific findings, relative to its decision of approval or denial. In the event the Board accepts the Planning Commission's recommendation, staff suggests the following findings would be appropriate: SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at the hearing. That all applicable regulations regarding a Zone District Amendment have been complied with including, but not limited to, Section 10.00 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 3. That the Planning Commission conducted a public meeting and recommended approval of modifications, to the Zone District Amendment, subject to certain conditions. 4. That the Planned Unit Development is in general conformity with the 1995 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan for Study Area I, as amended. 5. That the Planned Unit Development is consistent with Section 4.02 (Purposes and Objectives), 4.06 (Internal Compatibility) and Section 4.07 (Standards and Requirements) as contained in Section 4.00, inclusive, of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended and will implement the purposes of Section 4.07.01. 6. That, pursuant to Section 4.08.04, the uses by right, conditional uses, minimum lot area, maximum lot coverage, minimum setbacks, maximum height of buildings, and all other use and occupancy restrictions applicable to this Planned Unit Development shall be those which are approved by the Garfield County Commissioners, as contained herein. 7. In accordance with the provisions of Section 24-67-104, C.R.S., and Section 4.12.03(2) of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, the Board finds that the modifications, are consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire PUD, and do not affect, in a substantially adverse manner, either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the PUD, or the public interest, and is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. Staff further recommends the following conditions of approval, in addition to the three (3) conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: 4. That there shall be no more than 50 dwelling units, total. These units shall be allocated in the following manner: 47 single family residential units (detached); 3 employee housing units. 5 That a fully -executed contract from the,wastewater facility operator or provider, for a wastewater treatment facility serving the Preshana Farm PUD, shall be finalized no later than one (1) year from the date of conditional approval of the PUD modifications. That contract shall provide a mechanism by which the residents of the Preshana Farm PUD will participate in the operation of the wastewater facility. 6. Although Section 4.09.01 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution requires commencement of development within one (1) year of approval, the Board acknowledges that the provision for wastewater treatment service will likely require a waiver of this standard. Therefore, a subdivision preliminary plan must be submitted no later than 18 months from the date of approval of the PUD modifications. 7 If no such preliminary plan application is submitted, within the 18 month time period, the Board of County Commissioners shall hold a public hearing to determine the status of the PUD modifications and may, at that time, rescind its approval of the modifications, as well as the entire Preshana Farm PUD, consistent with Section 4.09.02 of the PUD regulations. All costs of said hearing shall be borne by the applicants. 8. No specific phasing plan has been developed and contained within the application. Pursuant to approval conditions 5 and 6 above, securing wastewater treatment services shall constitute Phase I of the development. The subdivision lots and installation of infrastructure shall be platted, in a single phase, as Phase II of the development. 9. That the following, changes shall be made to the noted zone districts: 0 S. - Open Space District Golf course and golf course driving range shall be allowed as special uses. E.C. - Equestrian Center District Delete provision for single family dwelling, two-family and multi family dwellings and replace with employee housing units either attached or detached; delete provision for day nursery; indoor and outdoor golf driving range and clubhouse, etc., shall be allowed as special uses; delete allowances for athletic facilities and tennis courts. 10. That all zoning districts and uses allowed within the individual zone districts of the original Preshana Farms PUD are hereby repealed and replaced with the modifications contained within the present application, with the modifications noted above. 11. That the following sign types and specifications shall be allowed within the PUD: Open Space District: One (1) subdivision identification not to exceed 100 square feet; RIO District, one (1) subdivision identification not to exceed 50 square feet; one (1) real estate sign not to exceed 50 square feet. The Garfield County Zoning Resolution shall control in all other instances. 12. The provisions of the Zone District Regulations shall prevail and govern the development of Preshana Farms PUD.provided, however, where the provisions of Preshana Farms PUD Zone District Regulations do not clearly address a specific subject, the ordinances, resolutions or regulations of Garfield County shall prevail. Definitions established herein shall take precedence over definitions established by the Zoning Resolution of Garfield County, adopted April 23, 1984, whenever these regulations are applicable to the Preshana Farms PUD. September 29, 1997 • Town of Carbondale 511 Colorado Avenue Carbondale, CO 316_3 Mr. Eric N1cCafferty Garfield aunty Building & Planning 109 East S.h Sc.. Suite 3+0_ Glenwood Springs. CO 31601 RE: Preshanna Farms PUD (970) 963-2733 FAX (97 O) Thank you for giving the Town of Carbondale the opportunity to respond to the PUD g . ZoninArnendment for Preshanna Farms. The Carbondale Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at their September :5th meeting and the;, unanimously di ected me to write the following letter. The primary issue is that the PLD Zoning for Preshanna a_ well as the Saint Finbar project and the related wastewater treatment facility are not in conformance with the land use densities of the Garfield County Comprehensive PIa^. The Plan designates this area as Low Density Residential and provides for 10 plus acres per dwelling unit. It is no secret that the property owners between the Ranch :i1 Roaring Fork and the Dakota Project have had discussions with the Mid Valley Metropolitan District for provision of water and wastewater services and may propose a considerable up -zoning in terms of densities. The Carbondale Planning & Zoning Commission strongly recommends that there be a discussion regarding what is the appropriate density from the Ra ch at Roaring Fork to the county boundary:We actually thought that this discussion and analysis had been held earlier during the recent County Comprehensive Plan approval process. Discussing properties from the Ranch at Roaring Fork to the county boundary on an individual basis takes away from neighboring property owners as well as the public at large the ability to examine and comment appropriately on what may be a significa_,t change for this area. It would also dilute the ability of the general public to discuss the positive and negative aspects of any proposed change to the land use classifications for the Cotnprehensive Plan in this area. With the skyrocketing cost of housing, higher densities may be appropriate but this discussion has not yet taken place in a public forum. Please remember that Garfield County. Glenwood Springs 'and the Town of Carbondale have gotten together a few times over this past year to discuss land use planning on a cooperative basis. What came out of these discussions was a proposal to have relatively dense urban cores with an urban growth boundary for the towns in the area beyond which development would be rural in nature. Installation of urban services and a significant up • • zor.ing from the Ranch (. Roaring Fork to the county boundary seems inconsistent with these discussions. As you can see. Carbondale's discussion was much more centered on the "macro" issues of this proposal as opposed to the specifics. The only other suggestion the Town of Carbondale has to offer is to point out that the zoning text for the PliD does not put any restriction on the number of single family dwellings or the number of multi -family dwellings in the Equestrian District. This would result in a conflict with the land use summary chart as provided in the application. Once main. thank you for letting Carbondale comment on this proposal. Please call me if you wish to discuss any of the issues in this letter. The Carbondale Planning Commission would also welcome a meeting with the Garfield County Planning Commission to discuss any of tse tar ger Sincerely. A. C� Michael c assi.:. Chairman Carbondale Planning & Zoning Commission (97 0) ?. L5. CCL FAX (970) 945-39,18 • • SG SC:- MUE_E.a CCPOCN '.1EYER ENGINEERS SURVEYORS September 30, 1997 Mr. Eric McCaffery Garfield County Planning Department 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RE: Preshana Farms PUD Rezoning and Sketch Plan Mid Valley Metr000litan District Dear Eric: 118 'Nest 6th. Suite 200 •Gier N�fi s,-_fO 81601 ,i, �OT 1 : ? 1 li 0.3: ilu L r _DC"�,tUz'fi� The purpose of this letter is to comment, as the engineer for the Mid Valley Metropolitan Cistrct (MVMD), on the above-mentioned application. As you may know, the Mid Valley Metropolitan District has entered into discussions with the Cerise property about pre -inclusion and annexation. As part of this discussion, the District has met cn a more regional basis with the adjoining landowners in this area, including the St. Finnbar property, to discuss regional wastewater treatment needs. The District and the property owners have discussed that the District would become the owner and management agency for the St. Finnbar wastewater treatment faciiity. The District believes it is in the best interest of their existing constituents, as well as new homeowners of these properties to be included within the District. The Board of Directors of the MVMD has supported this concept and has directed staff to continue working with the landowners to structure this arrangement. As part of this arrangement, the District believes that all the wastewater collection lines should be designed as a part of the regional' district, rather than just that specific development. The second reason the District supports this concept is that better control of water quality issues can be maintained. For instance, the Town of Carbondale and MVMD facilities have recently been notified that their wastewater discharges may contain an effluent limitation for ammonia. This is a new standard which previously had not been required. One of the justifications from the State Health Department for this ammonia limitation included growth in the area and expansions to facilities from Basalt, MVMD, St. Finnbar, Carbondale and Aspen Glen. The District believes that, if they are the owner and operator of this facility, they can better control the water quality issues of the Roaring Fork River. One of the main goals and objectives of the MVMD is protection of the Roaring Fork River quality and, as such, supports the concepts of regionalization and management through a District. The concept of providing water service to this area from the District, although discussed, has not been given much consideration at this time. This concept, however, should be thoroughly discussed and considered as part of the regional District discussions. September 30, 1997 Mr. Eric McCafferty Page 2 Finally, should this property be included within the District, the District would like to improve the communication with Garfield County staff. For instance, on the recently -completed Dakota Meadows project, which was the first project within the District and Garfield County, the project had actually received Final Flat approval from the County, yet, at the same time, did not have final approvals for water and sewer drawings from the District. This created plating problems which, to this day, are unresolved. Secondly, the Subdivision Improvements Agreement between Garfield County and Dakota Meadows and, specifically, the Letter of Credit was reduced for Dakota Meadows without consent of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. In the District's mind, the water and sewer lines were not complete and yet, the Letter of Credit was reduced. This created a situation where homeowners were actually receiving Certificates of Occupancy, yet the water and sewer lines were not complete and still have not been approved by MVMD. The District works very cooperatively with both Eagle County and the Town of Basalt, and believes as further development occurs in Garfield County, the same relationship may exist. The MVMD staff would be more than happy to sit down with Garfield County staff to resolve these issues. On behalf of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District, we would like to thank you for the chance to be a referral agency on this application. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. is Meyer, P.E. LM:ic/1 50 1 C97 cc: Mid Valley Metropolitan District Lee Leavenworth, Esq. - IA • Carbonde3e & ii:31,1ra3 Fire Frclscikm September 16, 1997 Eric McCafferty Garfield County Planning Department 109 3th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Preshana Farms PUD Rezoning & Sketch Plan Eric: r !L - '- f` 7-, '' f Meaaowood Drive .; ; '.1,.: `, am9nd •c0 8162 - GG3-2Q81 63 j . Zf-F 1 9 1997 I have reviewed the sketch plan proposal for the Preshana Farms PUD and would offer the following comments. Access The proposed road layout and access to the development is adequate for fire apparatus. Water Supplies Water supplies for fire protection are proposed to be supplied via a combination gravity and direct pumping, system_ The proposed storage is approximately 150,000 gallons with a proposed fire flow cf 1000 =lions per mimite. It is proposed that residences in cess of 3500 square would be required to be sprinkiered. This is consistent with the requirements of the Uniform Fire Ccde (UFC) - Appeadix III -A The spacing and distribution of fire hydrants in the development should meet the requirements of ITC- Appendix III -B. Few The developer will be required to enter into an agreement with the District for the payment of development impact fees. This payment is due prior to the recording of the final plat. Fees are based upon the per lot impact fee adopted by the District at the time the agreement is executed. Please call if you have any questions. MCUNT SOPRIS SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT P.O. BOX 1302 GLENWCCD SPRINGS, CO 81602 September 15, 1997 GAIFCIELOCXXJNTY Eric McCafferty Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwccd Springs, CO 81601 Dear Sir, At the regular monthly meeting cf the Mcunt Scpris Soil Conservation District, the Board reviewed the application and plan fcr the Preshana Farm Subdivision and have the following cc,.ents and concerns abcut the prcject. Any cuts for roads cr construction shculd be revegetated to prevent erosion. Weed free seed and mulch should be used fcr any reseeding cf the area. Mcnitcring of all seeding should be done to see if the grass is establishing or if weeds are becoming a problem. Reseeding cr weed centro l practices shculd be implemented if a prcblem is noticed. The board is always concerned abcut animal control in an area where there is the potential for conflict between wildlife or dcmestic livestcck and dcgs from the subdivisicn. Dogs running in packs cf two or mere can maim cr kill domestic livestcck and wildlife. The District recommends animal control regulations be adopted in the covenants fcr the subdivisicn and that they be enforced. Of prime concern to the Board, is the prcper maintenance and protecticn of any irrigation ditch which is on the site. New landowners shculd be informed that the ditch owners have right of '' t the irrigation system that they will way easement to maintain lrr�7�. Or. _ , be cleaning and working on the ditch, and that this work may be in their yards. The district wculd like to know what the impact will be cn the Wetlands in this area? All Wetlands should be protected and remain in as pristine condition as possible. The Board recommends that any irrigaticn water rights be used by the landowners so they are maintained. In order to use these rights, a raw water delivery system cculd be used for landscape, fire protecticn, open space, etc. If at all possible, this system should be incorporated into the infa-structure of the subdivision plans as it would be more cost efficient at this time. Their concern is always for soil and water conservation and preservation and plans should consider these concerns. Drainage has the potential to be a problem in the area and engineering recommendations for control of drainage should be . closely followed by the builder and/or homeowner. They felt that any disturbance of soil could adversely affect other landowners, and great care should be taken to mitigate as many of the problems as possible which arise when building on an alluvial fan deposit area. With increased concerns about Water Quality, the District is concerned about monitoring chemical application for fertilizer, weed control, and other pest management reascns. Their concern is the chemicals that will be used to fertilize grasses and control weeds in the area. They feel that the chemicals should be closely monitored in this area due to the possibility that the chemicals will soak into the soils and run off into the creeks. The District suggests drilling of wells to monitor ground water pollution, and that this expense and future expenses should be bore by the developer. Sincerely, Scot odero, President Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District • • STATE OF COLORADO Ray Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN ECUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Jahn Mumma, Director 6060 .roadway Denver, Colorado 30216 Telephone: (3031 297-1192 9-14-97 Garfield County Planning 109 8th St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 Dear Eric: . !! t_ 25E.,'-:,_.1..8 .1997 f Grits: -€LD CCC 1;^( REFER TO For Wildlife - For People I have reviewed the Preshana Farm PTD rezoning and sketch plan. Preshana's main value to wildlife is the riparian and wetlands along the southern boundary and Blue Creek. This habitat type is extremely valuable to any species of wildlife from mule deer, red fox, coyote, raccoon, mink, waterfowl, ranters, owls, and a variety of small mammals and nectropical birds (songbirds). Waterfowl will nest along the riparian area'and wetlands as well as cavity nesters, raptors, and owls utilizing the cottonwoods for nest and perching sites. The area does contain a small resident population of mule deer which utilize the riparian corridor from the Roaring Fork River to Blue Creek and the southern end of Preshana. In addition, there is a mule deer crossing area just to the west of Preshana and deer will utilize the easement area between the Ranch at Rearing Fork and Preshana. Impacts to wildlife should be minimal as long as a movement corridor is provided, there is protection of the riparian/wetland area, and dcgs are controlled. The proposal stated that pets will be restricted by protective covenants but it dces not state what are these restrictions. Protective covenants generally do net work for pet control as there is little enforcement, neighbors do not like to turn in neighbors, and they can be changed by a majoity vote. Roaming and uncontrolled dogs will have a major negative impact to wildlife in this area. Waterfowl nesting and use of the riparian areas will be disrupted. The Crown which is south of the property is critical winter range for mule deer and elk and roaming dogs would have easy and close access to this area resulting in chasing and harassment of wintering animals, displacement to less suitable habitat, direct and indirect mortality, etc. It is important that there be dog control; but as a condition of approval and not through protective covenants. DEPARTMENT CF NATURAL RESCURCSS, James S. Lochhead, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Arnold Salazar, Chairman • Rebecca L. Frank. Vice -Chairman • Mark LeValley, Secretary Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., Member • Chuck Lewis, Member • James Long, Member Louis F. Swift. Member • John Stu1p. Member The following recommendations will help to minimize impacts to wildlife: 1. Maintain hcmesite locations outside cf south open space area along Blue Creek. Hcmesites be located on bench above the creek as currently planned but with a minimum setback of 25' - 50' from back lot line. There should be no home or deck overhang to riparian/wetland area. 2. Maintain cottonwoods and dead snags along this riparain corridor. If some of the trees become a safety hazard they should be trimmed or topped and not fully cut down. A minimum 2-5 snags/acre should be maintained. 3. 1 deg/home with a kennel restriction. Kennel be constructed before C.O. is issued. 4. Fencing - There should be no fencing in the southerly riparian/wetland open space area or within the western open space easement between the Ranch at Rearing Fork and Preshana. All other fencing outside of the equestrian facilities be 42", 4 strand or less barb cr smooth wire with a 12" kickspace between the top 2 strands. Any rail fencing be the round or split rail type, 48", 3 rail or less with at least 18" between 2 of the rails. This is especially imocrtant to R-20 lots 1-11 and R-10 lots 1-10. 5. Bring the south boundary fence along Blue Creek into compliance with fencing recommendations from its current mesh wire state. 6. All utilities be buried or made raptor proof to prevent electrocution of raptors, owls, and eagles. 7. No horse grazing within the southern open space area along Blue Creek (riparain/wetland area) All homeowners should be made aware'that deer and perhaps an eccassional elk may cause damage to their ornamental and landscaping plants. The DCW is not liable for this damage. In addition, deer or elk may die cn their property and the homeowner will need to properly dispose of the carcass. Thank ycu for the ococrtunity to comment. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Kevin Wrig District W d1ife Manager Carbondale • • G A.RFIELD COUNTY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 109 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601-3303 Telephone (970) 945-9150 Fax No. (970) 945-7785 MEMO TO: ERIC McCA} 1i 1.RTY, PLANNER FROM: DON K. DEFORD RE: PRESHANA FARM P.U.D. DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 1997 After initial review of the submittal for the Preshana Farm P.U.D., I have the following comments: 1. While the plan identifies a method of sewage disposal (St. Finbar Sewage Treatment Plant), that method presumes that the Board will have previously approved both the St. Finnbar Development Plan, as well as state and local approval for the St. Finnbar Sewage Treatment Facility. Additionally, the plan identifies no guarantee mechanism for obtaining service from St. Finnbar or a method of service that will have some control by the homeowners of the Preshana Farm P.U.D. My recommendation is that the Board recuire that the central sewace system serving the Preshana Farm P.U.D. be contained within a special district controlled by those served by the treatment plan. This should occur prior to the submittal , of the preliminary plan. Additionally, the Board should recuire the current approval of the St. Finnbar developers to the plan proposed by the Preshana Farm developers, as well as an engineering report indicating the capacity of the St. Finnbar plant and its ability to serve the development proposed for Preshana Faris. 2. The P.U.D. plan should identify emergency access for the cul de sac road servicing the Preshana Farm P.U.D. 3. The develo ers should identify the manner in which the equestrian center, and apparent commercial use, is consistent with the comprehensive plan recommendations. 4. The identified open space contains potential commercial uses which may nct be for the primary benefit of the homeowners of the Preshana Farm P.U.D. Both equestrian and other uses of the open space must be limited to the use of the homeowners, or the manner in which it is to be for their primary benefit, must be identified. • a- • • Memo to Eric McCafferty, Planner From Don K. DeF ord, Esq. September 25, 1997 Page 2 5. In regard to the comprehensive plan density requirements, this P.U.D. wculd not seem to comply, requiring an amendment to the comprehensive plan prior to or as part of the P.U.D. approval process. Such an amendment may be obtainable based on a variety of factors, but as demonstrated by the Sunlight View application, general conformity with the comprehensive plan is required. Additionally, I do not believe this property is zoned for 1.2 acres per dwelling unit. That would be a unique zoning within Garfield County. 6. Any phasing plan anticipated for this project needs to be proposed and put in place at this time. Otherwise, the County will assume that the regulations will control and the property will commence development within one year from the date of the approval of the P.0 D 7. should be for the inclusion currently Thank you DKD:vlm The issues concerning open space and sewage treatment resolved at this time. I have spoken with the attorney Mid -Valley Water and Sanitation District concerning of the St. Finnbar plant in its area. That matter is under active consideration by that district. for your consideration of these comments. LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP 918 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 970-945-2246 / Fax 970-945-4066 December 1, 1997 Eric McCafferty, Planner Garfield County Planning Department 109 Eight Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Preshana Farm Planned Unit Development Dear Eric: �-,r �C I - . , ; ri_ f"' jcoi1997J) The following information is offered to assist the Board of County Commissioners with their review of the proposed modification of the Preshana Farm PUD. Specifically, I will respond to the items listed in your letter reviewing the action of the Planning Commission on October 8, 1997. 1] We do not have the specific language regarding limitations on dogs and wood stove regulations as established by the `Aspen Glen.' approval but we know these are standard criteria for the County and they would appear to be consistent with the concept of the Preshana Farm PUD. Eric, can you provide me withthe appropriate 1anQuage-for our �euieuc. 2] At the Planning Commission meeting, I requested input from the commission members regarding the design result that they desired to achieve by the reduction in the number of dwellings units. From their comments throughout the discussion, it appears there was a desire to see a net increase in the total dedicated open space. We will be prepared to discuss with the Board alternatives for the achievement of this intent. 3] T'ne Board should be aware that at the time of the writing of Don Deford's letter, he did not understand that Preshana Farm was an existing PUD. Mr. DeFord's letter is discussed as follows: 1. Two alternatives are now available for wastewater treatment. The selection of an alternative is strongly influenced by the St. Finnbar Land Company which would provide the treatment plant site for one of the alternatives. Wastewater treatment will be provided by either: a. An agreement with the St. Finnbar Land Company to provide services if they construct a new treatment plant on their site. This plant would be administered by a newly created Special Services District or by the Mid Valley Metropolitan • • District. On October 21, 1997 the Mid Valley Metropolitan District Board of Directors authorized the drafting of a pre -inclusion agreement that would encompass service to Preshana Farm and St. Finnbar Farm and the ownership and maintenance of the proposed treatment plant. The Site Application for this plant is currently being reviewed by the State Department of Health. Prior to submittal of the Preshana Farm Preliminary Subdivision Plan, an application will be made by the Mid Valley Metro District to expand its service boundaries or an application will be made to create a new special services district to encompass Preshana Farm and St. Finnbar Farm. b. An agreement with the Ranch at Roaring Fork to provide wastewater treatment services. T'ne property owners within the Ranch at Roaring Fork have recently voted to allow their Board of Directors to negotiate sewer and water service agreements with users outside of the Ranch boundaries. Discussions are being initiated with Ranch Board of Directors to establish such an agreement for provision of services to Preshana Farm. An agreement between Preshana Farm and the Ranch at Roaring Fork would be in place before submittal of a preliminary subdivision plan. This topic was briefly discussed by the Commission. but no specific point was made about where or how an emergency access should be connected to the cul-de- sac. Due to the flat terrain of the site and the proposed oversized cul-de-sac, we do not feel the emergency access is necessary. The Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District in their review letter of September 16, 1997 confirmed that the proposed access was adequate for their needs. We are willing to discuss this with the Board but I do not think this was a critical issue to the Planning Commission. 3. The current Preshana Farre PUD has commercial uses of a recreational character in the form of an equestrian center. The proposed modifications preserve this commercial recreational use and proposes an additional option in the form of a golf course. The golf course concept could -only occur if the residents of the PUD determine to make their open space lands available for such use. The Equestrian District and the limited Open Space attached to it is probably not enough acreage to accommodate even a small executive course. The expanded commercial use, in the form of an executive. par -3 golf course, is very much in the control of the home owner's association. The Comprehensive Plan indicates the desire to encourage commercial recreation uses and the proposed commercial recreation uses are consistent with the historic use and setting of the site. 4. The residents of the PUD are clearly the beneficiaries of the majority of the open space. As stated in the application, 17.4 acres of the Open Space District (30% of the PUD) will be dedicated to the home owner's association. This land is under their full ownership and control with one limitation. If a commercial operator of the equestrian center offers priority equestrian services to the residents, they will be obligated to make the pasture land portions of their open space available for 2 • eV • • equine use. All other use of the open space is determined by the residents. An additional Eve acres of the Open Space District is proposed to be attached to the Equestrian Center District to provide space for equestrian activities. The Open Space District represents 39 percent of the total PUD. If we consider the Equestrian Center District to be quasi -open space, dedicated open space and quasi -open space represents 55 percent of the Preshana Farm PUD. 5. This comment refects Don's original misunderstanding about the currently existing Preshana Fara PUD. I believe the Planning Commission determined that a change to the comprehensive plan was not necessary except to correct the error in the comp plan mapping. 6. Don thought it might be necessary to provide an initial phase that allowed adequate time for the initiation of the special services district. With this in mind. the Applicant requests, as an initial phase of development, one year from the date of the PUD modification approval until submittal of the preliminary plan is required. 7. Both of these issues are addressed above. Also attached herewith is a revised letter from Tom Zancanella which provides the calculation used for the application to the Basalt Water Conservation District. This letter provides for a portion of each lot to be irrigated from existing raw irrigation water supplies rather than all lot irrigation coming from the domestic water system as was portrayed in the original letter. Please give me a call if you have any Questions. Thank you for your assistance with this process. Sincerely, Ronald B. Liston 3 P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 • • /\<\ Z4NC414ELL4 4140 4550C14TiE5, VC. F14Gi14EEt 1NC CONSULTANTS' November 19, 1997 Mr. Mark Bean Gareld County Planning and Zoning Commission 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Preshana Farms P.U.D. - Water Supply Investigations Dear Mark: (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax Attached for your review is the Basalt Water Ccnserlancy District application for the proposed Preshana Farms P.U.D. The Preshana Farms P:U.D is to be located in the Catherine Store area just east cf Carbondale, Colorado. The attached Basalt Water Conservancy District contract will provide for up to 54 single family residences and an equestrian center. We have converted the future uses to EQRs to provide flexibility in future planning. We have included 2 EQRs to server the commercial uses associated with the equestrian center. We have assumed that these 54 single family units (51 residences and 3 employee units) and the commercial EQRs will each be occupied by 3.5 people using 100 gallons of water per person per day. Water will be diverted to irrigate up to 2,500 ft2 of lawn at each residence. We have also included 30 livestock units in the water service plan. Table 1 presents the diversions and consumptive use for the proposed Preshana Farms P.U.D. As can be seen from Table 1, the subdivision will divert on the average 31.61 AF, and consumptively use 8.01 AF. The peak month of June would require a continuous diversion average diversion of 30.5 gpm. The Subdivision is located within area A of the Basalt District and will be eligible for the Basalt District temporary exchange plan approved by Garfield County and the Colorado Division of Water Resources, until such time as the augmentation plan moves through water court. We have reviewed the kcal geology for the possibility of available water in the Preshana Farms P.U.D. area. We estimate the Roaring Fork Alluvium is approximately 40 or more feet thick in this location. It is our opinion that water should be obtainable within the Rearing Fork Alluvium and/or adjacent Quaternary terrace. The Preshana Farms P.U.D. proposes to construct test wells to fully evaluate the water supply for the proposed Preshana Farms P.U.D. The test drilling program will be completed prior to the submission of the preliminary plat. In addition, pump testing of the test wells will be completed with a minimum continuous testing period of 24 hours cn one well. Water samples will also be collected for quality analysis at an independent laboratory. Water quality tests will be performed based on Colorado Department of Health community water supply requirements. Supplemental Irrigation will be supplied to the P.U.D. through the Basin Ditch to the extent water is available. Based on the above information we believe that a water supply can be developed to serve the Preshana Farms P.U.D. If ycu have any questions, please call aur Glenwood Springs office at 945-5700. Very truly ycurs, Zancanella and Associates, Inc. A. Z, cam_ c. c Li Thomas A. Zancanella, P.E. President cc: Ron Liston L''97420\Gar.:tr.wpd ) •• APPLICATION FOR WATER ALLOTMENT CONTRACT BASALT WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT 1 Applicant's Name(s): Bruce Ross Address: P.O. Box 925, Basalt, CO 81621 Telephone Number: f 9701 927_0313 2. Type of land use (development) proposed for water allotment contract: (i.e. single family home, subdivision, gravel pit, etc.) PUD subd1•rision Legal description of property on which District's water rights and/or Ruedi Reservoir contract water shall bo used; Quarter Quarter, Section, Township, Range (attach map)*: see attached 4. Elevation zone of property X 6-7,000 ft. 7-8,000 ft. 8-9,000 ft. 5. Name and legal description of water supply diversion point(s); include Quarter Quarter, Section, Township, Range, bearing and distance from nearby Section corner. (Identify if well, spring, pipeline, etc.) If diversion point is a well, please provide the State Permit No. 11 11 Pi r ai 1 F` Exhibit A far legal descriptions;1 6 Has Applicant applied with the Water Court for water rights, change of water rights and/or a water right plan for augmentation) yes � no; If yes, what is the Water Court Case No. 7. Proposed waste water treatment system: (please chock) Y Tap to central waste water treatment facility Septic tankileachfield system Evapotranspiration system Other: 8. Proposed use of water: (please check) X Domestic/Municipal (single family home(s),duplex(s),condominium(s), mobile hornets), apartment, hotel). Please complete page two of this :application. Commercial (office, warehouse, restaurant, bar, retail). Please complete page three of this application. Industrial (gravel pit, manufacturing). Please complete page three of this application. Agricultural (crop irrigation, stock watering). Please complete page four of this application. Date on which the county or other applicable governmental entities approved the land use for which you seek legal water service: oend ing . (Nate: Copy of the Resolution or other documentation evidencing such approval should be submitted with application. The undersigned acknowledges receipt of the District's form Water Allotment contract and agrees �� this Appli tion is made pursuant to the term and conditions thereof. Signature 8 Water Conservancy District W Allotment Application Page' Two Please complete this pago if you chocked domestic/municipal use on Page 1, No. 8. DOMESTIC/MUNICIPAL WATER USES In -House Single-family residential home(s), Cuplex(s) Condominium(s) Hotel/Apartment Mobile Homes) see attached table Number of units: 54 Number of units: Number of units: Number of units (rooms): Number of units: Irrioation (lawns, parks, open space) Total area to be irrigated 2500/uni'sq. ft. or 3.10 acres Type of irrigation system: (please check) X Sprinkler Flood (irrigation ditch) Domestic stock watering (cattle, horses) Number of animals: 30 Period of use (months): Other domestic/municipal uses not listed: Water Allotment Applicatio Page Three II) Please complete this page if you chocked commercial or industrial use on Page 1, No. 8. COMMERCIAL WATER USES In -House Office(s), square footage: 2 2OR's (1 office) Warehouse/distributor, square footage: Retail, square footage: Restaurant, number of seats: Bar, number of seats: Irrigation (lawns, parks, open space) 2500 ft2EQR Total area to be irrigated sq. ft. or 0 _ t 1 acres Type of irrigation system: (please check) Y Sprinkler Flood (irrigation ditch) Other Commercial Uses Not Listed: 2 bathrooms at tie equestrian center INDUSTRIAL WATER USES Please describe your industrial development in some detail: N/A Irrigation (lawns, parks, open space) Total area to be irrigated sq. ft. or acres Type of irrigation system: (please check) Sprinkler Flood (irrigation ditch) Basalt Water Conservancy District Water Allotment Contract Application Page Four Please complete this page if you checked agricultural use on Page 1, No. 8. Irrigation AGRICULTURAL WATER USE N/A Type of crop(s) (pasture, alfalfa, beans, etc.) and irrigation system: Crop Crop Crop Crop Stock Mitering (cattle, horses) Number of animals: Months of use: Acras Sprinkler; Fiood Acres Sprinkler; Flood Acres Sprinkler; Flood Acres Sprinkler; Flood Other acricultural uses not listed: Presliana Farms P.U.D. Estimatecl Water Requirements • • Pond Sui(ace Area O • a7 T E a a U - rn uE o W W U a c Y Q O a ou a a y ▪ U - ani c a o > a < U 0. a c N C 0 LI) o (-4 m Y # u . C L m z c E a W2.c .v c o ni ,9 0 c V 2 al < U 9 r O F N j C U 1 H .2. 7 = F- L U N > 0 .3 "- H vI 0)0)0,70! •••r a) ID ▪ N -r t•7 0 n °) CO M O f7Pf ID 0 0 CO P) - - O• I O 000 ----oo ao. m T T 'r T T 'f T T T T 7 T O O 00000000000 101 O O O a C) 0 0 o C O C) O OI O 0,0)0)0)00)00)000 O O O O C O C O 0 0 0 0 6666600,66660 0I 0I OI O • 8 C NN N N T O a(D N 8 O a' O 0 0 0--- O O O O O 10 000000888888 al O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 Oj o- c r` o- c o r- o C) m O m O) m a 0) m O m ▪ 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 -I O O O— ID 7/) — m V) ID O O C) fD ID C O l') N co ^ N C N N • N— (71 '? T m O O n 7/) -- O r` O '- ID O O N O N m 0 P) T !7 P7 N N I^ a n — c') — n n — 1') c') T t1 T R T -r T T -r T T T OCCOOCCOCCOCI O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O t7 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000 O • O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 C O O N N- - 0 c') - t') C O 4)- 0000-'3N--000 0) f\ O h tD t` ID n r- 00000000 - 000OOCC0 00000000 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 0 O 1 0.700 m O m m 0 0 0 m O N O T 0) T C) O T O T O r` ID r-• r. 7- n t` r- 7- r- CO — N a a) 77 C November December E: c. EXHIBITA Proposed Well locations for Preshana Farms P.U.D : Each of the proposed wells is located in SE quarter of the NW quarter of Section 31, Township 7 South, Range 87 West, of the 6'' F.M. Appaloosa Well 1825 feet from the north line 2147 feet from the west line Located at a point whence the Northwest corner of Section 31 bears North 4007'19" West for a distance of 2806 feet Arabian Well 1714 feet from the north line 1918 feet from the west line • Located at a point whence the Northwest corner of Section 31 bears North 41°33'11" West for a distance of 2562 feet. Pinto Well 1579 feet from the north line 2040 feet from the west line Located at a paint whence the Northwest corner of Section 31 bears North 37°28'30" West for a distance of 2569.5 feet. see fiie .63Cc/servarea2.dwg in the image Iles for details u a \ , sa:aaasa: a, \ 131.1 •, { ....... J. Vim\ 7• • ( 7. --��/ (ice; �� s�. A a1 Vt 3' Y + �f� N 'aana { { v\\-b5/ 1�'` [`/'��f :/97,......, .________ I,,,, f;l t 619-` t1:-..,.,:-. _ _ 'y, � �./ \�\‘______—_—_-----____„,,...,______3-„-.. � �` { � .::'•,--;-��a13aa13 (/) is /� �,�` � 3 7 ........... .. +-1117 .•Y,. r`•_ -a:..:/ 6a( 1 ^ �_� 6299 '' --^. U I I .. ..1. CATHERINE SiCRE .rte I.-- --- I _.�-. ..-F... 1( X 29 1.*as= P-RESj-iAN ,`�, RANCH AT RCAR:NG FORK.- " ORK' �,- s,FARl1 .: : • I _ _ �5 C 77.• .1 BLUE CREEK RANCH 1. ' �..... JO 0 1 TO C?RECNCAL= /;%' '6.:Ca l c. rte, ' r SCALE i • �_ .tel! 72.30 November 21, 1997 Board of County Commissioners 109 3`s Street Suite 301 Glenwood Springs. Colorado Re: Heat-; ckj ,na Trettin and Bruce Ross request for zoning change. Hearing: 2:00 p.m. on December 3, 1997 Dear Commissioners: NOVSTAPYI, 4.1 25 1.997 6 FF.:0 CL'IINTY �1Yi$SiC '�S As 1 am unable to attend the hearing scheduled. I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed PLD modification. My concern is that the valley continues to build more and more homes and it appears to me that it is being done without considering the impact on the environment and the existing infrastructure. Highway 32 is maxed out as everyone knows. There are some 500 homes being built in El Jebel next to City Market. St. Finnabar is on the planning table which is directly adjacent to this proposed site. Is the state going to allow these developments to build their own sewer systems? I have read in several articles published in the Glenwood Post and .Aspen Times that the state was going to put an end to the growth of individual sewer systems. People who would buy homes here would most likely work in the Aspen-Snowmass area and as I mentioned earlier, Highway 32 cannot handle any more cars and won't be able to in the foreseeable future. Besides the issue of congestion., there is the issue of air pollution. There are many other questions that need to be studied before we allow this growth to continue. Are we going to allow an investor's greed to destroy why we have chosen to live in this valley. The beauty of open space and a clean environment need to be protected or else we are going to turn this valley into another Southern California. People will move on to other places if they have to spend 3 hours commuting to work. We moved here to escape that life style and it "frightens me to see it get any worse that it is now. We are destroying the down valley to service a town that will not allow growth which would destov its marketability in the ski industry. Please protect our open spaces and don't let growth go on unchecked as to what our infrastructure can handle. Sincerely. Jerry and Vico Garwood • CO. ROTO 100 • r 1 I , ; 1 ►� I / r 1 • / 1 r• r r 1 / / I1 1 rI / ,/ r yy •—•./, / 3 / .� iL /'' 1`'/ / 1• '/ C.. r' Cr) / /// ;. / / 1 I 1/ C. 11/' 1 ► I:• 1 r / / , / / / 11 / ./ / / / / / / ,'I ! ' 1 I �' / - - -/. // • _' / U r . r ✓ ... / / �.-. I �r I / / �1I1 / / Ya / li ! I • l r' r! / , 1 / �..,, , it 1 (i r 1 �1 ' // / / 7- ! / j, -/ / ! i' ! `' ► ;I'/ , - / 1 ,1/ /' -.-- 4 /''' ,1 • / 11 /' / C/ ] r /I' f 11 iii/ - /1. / K a /— EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PRE S' HA NA I I • 1 1 Y CO. ROAD 100 • r• /w.... r.....r..•1 $5. WZ cc cr, WCC /Za '_' i sr1 I =r r = f . ra 7 y Po' o: PUD MASTER PLAN o C7 • ll. PRE SIIANil FRES'r .NA FARM ?IAN= UNIT DE•v=PMM7I' LAND USE SUMMARY Revised 8-02-89 [ DWELLING ACRES • % CF UNITS PCD I Coen Space District 30.6 52.85 1 EQUESTRIAN CENTER DIST.(17cicvee Ecusirg) 10 10.2 17.62 i SING.?. FAMILY Y DIS? CT 15 10.9 12.83 i CLUSTER ECCSING DISTRICT 11 3.6 6.22 E LTi CE RESIDENTIAL DISK' ! DWELLING UNITS 2 2.6 4.49 t L✓CGING UNITS 10 (fir Scec_a1 Use Review) TCCM. CW r . - -NG (NITS TaTAL _CEDING UNITS CRCSS Com ITY(Cwe11ir_c Units) .66 Units/Acre -35 38 57.9 . 10 100.00 • cc. acnn •ca co. /ono :co PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRESHANA FARM PUD LI,ND USE SUMMARY 724!97 Cwellinc Units Acres % cf RUC Open Space. Cistrc Equestrain Canter District R20 - Single Family ,Residential District R10 - Single Family Residential District Rcad Richt-cf-Way 4 20 30 22.4 9.2 12.2 8.9 5.2 TOTAL PUC 54 57.9 Gress Cer..sity cf Tctal PUD 0.9 UNITS/ACRE 1.1 .CRE :/UNIT Net Censity cf Residential Cistrct5 2.4 UNITSSIACRE 39% 16% 21% 15% 1 C0°%o L 60-,* i(r) p)O-P p}'17j cow-- iry\ suo N--(W rrs Juvr)