HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 BOCC Staff Report 01.03.2000PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER/ENGINEER:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
I.
PROJECT INFORMATION
BOCC 01/03/00
Aspen Equestrian Estates Subdivision (of the
Preshana Farms P.U.D.) request for a P.U.D. zone
district amendment
Jay Weinberg of Aspen Equestrian Estates, LLC
Land Design Partnership / High Country
Engineering
Section 31, Township 7S, Range 87 W. Near the
intersection of County Road 100 and Hwy. 82, 3
miles east of Carbondale near Catherine's store.
57.9 acres to be used for 47 Single Family homes, 3
employee housing units, with 22.4 acres remaining
in open space
Well supplying a central water system with a
second backup well
Central treatment facility located at Ranch at
Roaring Fork
County Road 100
Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.)
A/R/RD to the north, south, & east; P.U.D. to west
A. Site Description: The subject tract is about 58 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 indoor and outdoor equestrian facilities, polo grounds, stables, storage barn, and
an old concrete foundation. To the south of the equestrian facilities there are two (2) one
Page 1 of 5
story wood frame houses and a small garage. The pasture/rangeland is in fair condition.
The subject tract is in an area of varying land uses. Ranch at Roaring Fork P.U.D. is
located west of the tract, Catherine's Store is located to the east, and agricultural land
uses can be found to the east, south, and north (across Hwy. 82). St. Finnbar Farm
Subdivision is located to the south.
B. Project History: The subject tract was approved for a PUD in 1989. At that time, the
PUD proposed 38 dwelling units, a 10 guest bed and breakfast, a centralized equestrian
facility, and open space buffer from Hwy. 82. Water supply was to be provided by the
Ranch at Roaring Fork's existing supply and capacity. In the event no agreement could
be reached, the water supply was to be developed internally. Wastewater treatment
would also be provided by Ranch at Roaring Fork, which would need modifications to
provide the needed extra capacity. No service agreement was ever reached and the
project became inactive.
In 1997 the County received a combined sketch plan / PUD amendment application.
On October 8, 1997, the Planning Commission recommended approval to the Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC) of the Preshana Farms P.U.D. rezoning application. At
a regular meeting of the BOCC on March 2, 1998, the board signed resolution 98-11
concerning the approval of modifications to the Planned Unit Development rezoning
plan. The conditions of approval are as follows:
1. That the application shall conform to all current Planned Unit Development
requirements and subdivision requirements concerning limitations on dogs and
"Aspen Glen" wood stove regulations.
2. There shall be no more than fifty (50) single family dwelling units which shall be
allocated in the following manner:
47 single family residential units within the single family districts;
3 employee housing units within the equestrian district.
3. A fully -executed contract from a wastewater facility district or owner to provide
wastewater treatment serving Preshana Farms PUD, shall be finalized no later
than one (1) year from the date of conditional approval of the PUD modifications
(February 9, 1998). Such contract shall provide a mechanism which the residents
of the Preshana Farms PUD will participate in the operation of the wastewater
facility.
4. 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 (February 9, 1998).
Page 2 of 5
5. 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 it's
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.
6. No specific phasing plan has been developed and contained within the
application. Pursuant to approval conditions (4) and (5) 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.
7. The following changes shall be made to the proposed modified zone districts:
O.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 dwelling, 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.
8. 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 and modifications noted
herein.
9. That the following sign types and specifications shall be allowed within the PUD:
O.S. — Open Space District: One (1) subdivision identification not to exceed 100
square feet.
R10 District: One (1) subdivision sign 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.
10. The provisions of the Zone District Regulations shall prevail and govern the
development of the Preshana Farms PUD provided, however, where the Preshana
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 January 2, 1979 and as
amended, whenever these regulations are applicable to the Preshana Farms PUD.
Page 3 of 5
11. That Basalt Water Conservancy District contracts for adequate water rights and
supply must be in place at time of preliminary plan application..
�
II. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS:
r• ry,
A. Zoning: In this case the applicant is amending the P.U.D. technically to attempt o meet
the conditions set by the Board of County Commissioners in Resolution 98-11. Some 1„ -
clarification is needed from the Board regarding whether or not the intent of 98-11 has AA-P°6-
been
A-P 6been met. Item # 7 states that allowances for athletic facilities and tennis courts should
be deleted from the E.C. zone district. The applicant is proposing to maintain these as
special uses. See page I S' for copy of 2/9/98 meeting minutes. rn,vvuc
'6
III. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: r t �` ct ,,4.r ct-
( r , t 1544-q 61-kiVtt
1. That the Garfield County Planning Commission is authorized by the provisions of Section I
30-28-109 through 116, C.R.S. 1973, as amended, to provide recommendations concerning
proposed amendments to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, and f
zone district maps, as amended. i -Le asL. / a v �= mr-,w
T (1( _ 1 '/ R i.a„ , ) )
2. That the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners is authorized by the provisions
of Section 30-28-109 through 116, C.R.S. 1973, as amended, to consider approval,
conditional approval, or denial of proposed amendments to the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution of 1978, as amended, and zone district maps, as amended.
3. That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the
Board of County Commissioners.
4. That an application for a zone district amendment was made according to the requirements
of Section 4:00 and 10:00 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended.
5. That the meeting 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 that hearing.
6. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed P.U.D. amendment is in the best
interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the
citizens of Garfield County.
7 That the 1978 Garfield County Zoning Resolution, as amended, the Garfield County
Subdivision Regulations of 1984, the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, the Garfield
County road standards and policies, and all other applicable local, state, and federal
regulations, resolutions, plans, and policies have been complied with.
Page 4 of 5
8. The requested PUD amendment does not affect in a substantially adverse manner either
the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across the street from the PUD, or the public
interest, and are not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person.
9. Subject to the conditions set forth below, all uses by right, conditional uses, minimum lot
areas, minimum lot coverage, minimum set -backs, maximum height of buildings and
other use and occupancy restrictions applicable to this PUD are hereby approved by the
Board of County Commissioners as set forth in the zone text attached hereto and
incorporated herein as exhibit A.
10. The PUD, subject to the conditions set forth herein, will be designed with the
consideration of the natural environment of the site and surrounding area, and will not
unreasonably destroy or displace wildlife, natural vegetation or unique features of the
site.
11. Subject to the provisions of §4.08.06 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978,
as amended, the Board of County Commissioners find that no portion of the PUD
conditionally approved herein may be occupied until appropriate final plats have been
approved by this Board.
IV. RECOMMENDATION:
On November 10, 1999, the Garfield County Planning Commission made a recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners concerning the proposed PUD amendments to the Preshana Farms
PUD (a.k..a. Aspen Equestrian Estates Subdivision). The recommendation is as follows:
1. That the proposed Planned Unit Development amendments be approved provided the Board of
County Commissioners revisits the issue of whether or not athletic facilities and tennis courts
should be deleted from the E.C. (Equestrian Center) District or remain as special uses (pursuant
to section item 7 of resolution 98-11).
63 rhe }t. 1-. \ '( -7'•
Page 5 of 5
elie) rD -iL-
5
/ �! (jj'f
t ,�,
/if!, e -a a--/ 3
Exhibit A
I. ZONE DISTRICTS
The provisions of these regulations shall prevail and govern the development of
Preshana Farm PUD provided; however, where the provisions of Preshana Farm
PUD Zone 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 Regulation of Garfield County, adopted January 2, 1979 and as
amended, wherever these regulations are applicable to Preshana Farm PUD.
A. ZONE DISTRICTS LISTED
To carry out the purposes and provision of the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution of 1978, Garfield County, Colorado, as amended, the Preshana Farm
Planned Unit Development Zone District is further divided into the following zone
district classifications:
- O.S.
- E.C.
- R20-S.F.R.
- R10-S.F.R
Open Space District
Equestrian Center District
R20 - Single Family Residential District
R10 - Single Family Residential District
B. O.S. OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
1. Uses By Right:
a. Open Space and Greenbelt
b. Park
c. Water Storage Tank
d. Pasturing of livestock including structures providing shelter for
livestock and livestock feed when the footprint of the structure is
600 square feet or less.
2. Uses, Conditional:
NONE
3. Uses, Special:
a. Home Occupation
Indoor and Outdoor Golf Driving Range
'C Golf Course with associated clubhouse including customary
accessory uses including pro -shop, retail food and beverage
service.
f.
Athletic Club with indoor and outdoor facilities •
Miniature Golf
Indoor Commercial Recreation,
4. Minimum Lot Area
43,560 Square Feet ( 1 acre )
5. Maximum Lot Coverage
30 percent
6. Minimum Setback
a. Front Yard
35 feet
b. Rear Yard
25 feet
c. Side Yard
25 feet
7 Maximum Building Height
25 feet, Except that a water storage tank or a structure enclosing
such tank may be 32 feet to the highest ridgeline of the structure.
D. R20/S.F.R. R20/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
D
1. Uses By Right:
a. Single family and customary accessory uses including building for
shelter or enclosure of animals or property accessory to use of the
lot for residential purposes and fences, hedges, gardens, walls and
similar landscape features.
b. Park and Open Space
\AO
8
2. Uses, Conditional
NONE
3. Uses, Special:
a. Day Nursery (maximum of 6 nonresident children)
b. Home Occupation
4. Minimum Lot Area
20,000 square feet
5. Maximum Lot Coverage
40 percent
6. Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard: 25 feet
Rear Yard: 25 feet except as depicted on the final plat
(Note: Lots 11, 12 & 13 to have 60 foot rear yard setback)
Side Yard: 20 feet
7. Maximum Building Height
25 feet
8. Maximum Floor Area
0.40/1.0 and as further provided under Supplemental Regulations
9. Minimum Off -Street Parking
Parking Spaces 6
D. R10/S.F.R. R10/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
1. Uses By Right:
a. Single family and customary accessory uses including building for
shelter or enclosure of animals or property accessory to use of the
lot for residential purposes and fences, hedges, gardens, walls and
similar landscape features.
b. Park and Open Space
2. Uses, Conditional
NONE
3. Uses, Special:
a. Day Nursery (maximum of 4 nonresident children)
b. Home Occupation
4. Minimum Lot Area
10,000 square feet
5. Maximum Lot Coverage
40 percent
6. Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard: 25 feet
Rear Yard: 25 feet except as shown on final plat
(Note: Lots 16 - 19 to have 50 foot rear yard setback)
Side Yard: 15 feet
7 Maximum Building Height
25 feet
8. Maximum Floor Area
0.40/1.0 and as further provided under Supplemental Regulations
9. Minimum Off -Street Parking
Parking Spaces 6
II. DESIGN STANDARDS
A. SIGNS
All signs shall be subject to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution as amended
except as listed below
1. Open Space District
One subdivision identification sign not to exceed 100 square feet.
2. R10 — Single Family Residential District
One subdivision identification sign not to exceed 50 square feet.
One real estate sign not to exceed 50 square feet
B. FENCES
All fences shall be subject to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution as
amended except as listed below.
/0
1 Fences within the Open Space District shall observe the following criteria
except for areas requiring protection from wildlife:
a) Maximum height:
Wire Fence or solid fence or wall - 44 inches
Rail Fence - 54 inches
b) Wire strand fences shall have a minimum of 12 inches between the
top two wire strands.
d) Fences higher than 54" designed to exclude deer and elk from
gardens, landscaped areas or storage areas shall meet the
required building setbacks of the district.
2. Fences within the Residential Districts shall not exceed 48" when located
within the Front Yard Setback.
C. LIGHTING
All site lighting shall be downward directed to avoid projection of the light beyond
the boundaries of the lot. The luminar light source shall be shielded to minimize
glare when observed from adjacent lots.
III. VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Except as defined below, all provisions of the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations shall be applicable to the Preshana Farm PUD.
A. STREET DESIGN STANDARDS
1. Design Standards: Standard street design shall be as identified in the
attached chart titled Preshana Farm - Road Design Standards.
2. Cul-de-sac Length: Cul-de-sacs in excess of 600 feet shall observe the
following design standards:
a. Minimum Right -of -Way Radius 75 feet
b. Minimum Driving Surface, Outside Radius 70 feet
IIIRPRESHANA FARM PUD
oad Design Standards
7/28/97
ma
ROAD NAME R.O.W. LANE SHOULDER DITCH MINIMUM MAXIMUM CUL-DE-SAC
WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH C. LINE GRADE RADIUS
jAll widths & radii are in feet RADIUS R.O.W.
Primary Access 70 12 4 10' min. 100 6% 75
la
Secondary Access 70 11 4 10' min. 100 6% 75
NOTES: 1. All road surfaces are a minimum of chip & seal.
2. All roads are two lanes in width.
3. Shoulders are gravel or a stablized structural section as approved by
the County Road Supervisor that allows grass to grow in the shoulder area.
4. Curb and gutter are not required on any road in the PUD.
5. Cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum paved, outside tuming radius of 70 feet
/2
- 793 McCown seconded; carried.
2� 19 e rvv:tl2v)NLege-
794
795 Commissioner McCown made a motion to grant the Special Use Permit for an electrical line
796 upgrade as described in the packet, considering the recommendations of staff 1 - 7.
797 Commissioner Martin added he would like to address the erosion and possibility of drainage
798 issues that have been raised here today numerous times. Is there anything in the
799 recommendations that can address this.
800 Michael stated one of the staffs condition or statements in the report is that anything committed
801 to or stated in their application is binding to them. There are a number of areas within the
802 administrative record especially soil and erosion control addressed on page 2-11; 3 -16; and
803 construction practices and mitigation 2-7 through 2-12 monitored by this Board.
804
805 The motion was seconded Commissioner Martin.
806 Chairman Smith added that she can't stress enough for them to follow every recommendation on
807 erosion.
808 Vote - Motion carried.
809 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE DISTRICT AMENDMENT MODIFICATION FOR THE
810 PERSHANNA FARM PUD LOCATED 3 MILES EAST OF CARBONDALE ALONG COUNTY ROAD
811 100. APPLICANTS: HENRY AND LANA TRETTIN; BRUCE ROSS
812 Eric McCafferty, Ron Liston, Bruce Ross, Henry and Lana Trettin and Don DeFord were
813 present.
814
815
816 This is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire PUD, does not
817 affect in a substantial adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a
818 street from the PUD, or the public interest, and is not granted solely to confer a special benefit
819 upon any person.
820
821 It is this staffs opinion that the approval of the proposed modifications to the existing PUD plan
822 would not be consistent with "the efficient development and preservation of the entire PUD, " as
823 required by regulations. Staff maintains, that approval of this request would "confer a special
824 benefit upon [a] person" for the simple fact that the applicants' requested density increase results
825 in Garfield County subsidizing the equestrian facilities, without any guarantee whatsoever that
826 the equestrian facilities would remain operational.
827
828 Additionally, the modifications to the PUD are not in the public interest as the Goals of the
829 Comprehensive Plan would not be met in the following areas:
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
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.
13
Recreation and Open Space: It would seem that initial sales within the PUD would be
42 marketed to people who would be interested in utilizing the equestrian facilities and
843 associated open spaces; however, these could be extinguished at the whim of the owner
844 of the question facilities, with the resulting golf course having absolutely no
845 relationship to the former recreational and open space uses;
846 Agriculture: A golf course would not, in any fashion, resemble the current equestrian
847 and agricultural uses of the property.
848 Water and Sewer Services: At this time, no wastewater services are ensured for either
849 the new or old PUD.
850 Natural Resource Extraction: The property very obviously overlies the alluvium of the
851 Roaring Fork Valley and the platting and development of the property would result in
852 losing the aggregate resources underlying the property.
853 Urban Areas of Influence: Although the site is not within the statutory urban area of
854 influence of the Town of Carbondale, the Town has commented that the development
855 encourages sprawl and is the antithesis of the Comprehensive Plan for Study Area I.
856
857 Staff submits further that the provision for a par -3 golf course is incompatible with the equestrian
858 uses of the PUD, which violates Section 4.06 of the PUD regulations. Based on many of these
859 reasons, staff recommended to the Planning Commission denial of the PUD modifications.
860 Contrary to this recommendation, the Planning Commission, with a vote of 5 - 2 recommends
861 approval of the modifications pursuant to the following conditions:
862
863 1. That the application conform to all current Planned Unit Development requirements and
864 subdivision requirements concerning limitations on dogs and the "Aspen Glen" wood
865 stove regulations.
866 2. That there shall be no more than 47 single family dwelling units and no more than three
867 (3) employee housing units.
868 3. That all requirements contained in Don DeFord's letter shall be met, specifically the
869 sewage disposal requirements.
870 Depending on the Board's disposition in this matter, the Board is required to make specific
871 findings, relative to its decision of approval or denial. In the event the Board accepts the
872 Planning Commission's recommendation, staff suggests the following findings would be
873 appropriate.
874
875 In a previous motion, the Board stated a decision would be made by February 17, 1998.
876
877
878 1. That there shall be no more than 50 dwelling units, total. These units shall be allocated in
879 the following manner:
880 47 single family residential units (detached); 3 employee housing units.
881 2. That a fully -executed contract from the wastewater facility operator or provider, for a
882 wastewater treatment facility serving the Pershanna Farm PUD, shall be finalized no
883 modifications. That contract shall provide a mechanism by which the residents of the
884 Pershanna Farm PUD will participate in the operation of the wastewater facility.
885 3. Although Section 4.09.01 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution requires
886 commencement of development within one (1) year of approval, the Board acknowledges
887 that the provision for wastewater treatment service will likely require a wavier of this
888 standard. Therefore, a subdivision preliminary plan must be submitted no later than 18
889 months from the date of approval of the PUD modifications.
4. If no such preliminary plan application is submitted,
870
891
892
893 Ron Liston - gave an overview of the project and added that no golf course has been planned. He
894 added that the open space will be controlled by the homeowners.
895 It is to give flexibility to the homeowners allowing them space as how they maintain their open
896 space. Sewer - the Ranch at Roaring Fork will provide services. An agreement has been reached
897 but not signed. He added that he did not agree with the staffs recommendations.
898 Commissioner McCown clarified in revising this PUD there was quite a reduction in labor in
899 managing this facility. It has gone from 10 - 3 employee housing unit.
900 Bruce Ross - 2 employees live on site currently.
er
01 Chairman Smith - noted that the open space decreases and an increase in the dwelling units.
902 Toni Zanacella - the water will be wells either an independent system on its own or a joint
903 system with Ranch at Roaring Fork - a central type system. The water supply would be backed
904 up with Basalt contracts.
905 Commissioner McCown - questioned as there are no wells drilled and there is no agreement with
906 Basalt water. Today there is no water.
907 Ron addressed this issue and stated it was his understanding and suggested it should be a
908 condition imposed, however it has been their understanding from the beginning that water would
909 be provided by Basalt and/or Ranch at Roaring Fork and contracts are available.
910 Martha Densmore - Stagecoach Lane - referenced the real estate showing the Aspen Times of
911 February 7 & 8, 1998 where Pershanna Farms is for sale. Is Pershanna for sale? She also
912 commented on the density issues.
913 Ron Liston - commented that a piece of property does not come off the rolls until there is a
914 closing.
915 Bruce Ross - added that closing depends upon other issues being settled.
916 Chairnian Snaith swore in the speaker.
917 Bobbie Tucker - 0369 Ranch at Roaring Fork - curious to know who signed from Ranch at
918 Roaring Fork with respect to the water.
919 Chairman Smith answered Mr. Halloway - signed it.
920 Bobbie - When they had approved before for Pershanna joining their wastewater plant, she felt
921 there was going to be far fewer units than the new project that has just come on board and she
922 was not aware that her Board had approved the new section with the 59 units.
923 Chairman Smith corrected her that it was not 59 units.
924 Commissioner Martin moved to close the Public Hearing. Commissioner McCown seconded;
925 Don DeFord commented for the record that he wanted to make one statement. The staff
926 recommendation indicates that the Planning Commission ask that they comply with the sewage
927 disposal requirements and as Mr. Liston has addressed here, Don wanted to make it clear with
928 the Ranch at Roaring Fork they are no longer proposing a St. Finnebar Sewage Treatment
929 Facility so that makes his comments moot and no longer applicable, therefore this condition does
930 not apply.
931
932 Motion carried
933
934 Commissioner Martin made a motion to deny this based on the staff finding adding that the PUD
935 does violate the density set down by the Garfield Comprehensive Plan and it is pointed out not
936 only in the staff but also in The Town of Carbondale note and the concerns of Mt. Sopris soils
937 district for erosion, negative impacts on wetlands, ag lands, and the decrease in open space being
938 inconsistent with the comp plan.
939 Motion died for lack of a second.
940
941 A motion was made by Commissioner McCown to approve the PUD modification for Pershanna
942 Farms PUD and would like to include on page 6 recommendation 1, 2 delete 3 add 1 - 7 under
943 findings; and starting on page 4 middle of the page delete No. 9 single family dwelling, 2 family
944
945 delete the multi-family
for rn replace
and outdoor •olf driving attached or � - . hed -
dwellingsp her
provisionsday rang- n pub house tall
946 be allowed as special uses
947 deletions are Dart ofd,' Add No. 13 - stating that some type o a con ract or agreeme t for water
—948 -rights and st be in place with a municipality or district as provided and I'm not sure we
949 have the operator under No. 5 could also be an operator or district (Don agreed this would he
950 right - this includes Ranch at Roaring Fork or the district).
951 Don asked with supply that they include the same language with water as he did with sewer that
952 it be operator or district, where we originally said municipality or district which would exclude
953 the Ranch at Roaring Fork or well. So Commissioner McCown you wanted it to be either or
954 for the water rights and the waste water.
955 Commissioner McCown added that he had no intentions and didn't think it was the intentions of
956 Pershanna Farms to build a wastewater treatment facility.
957 Ron - correct and if he wanted to include that restriction that was fine.
958 This was clarified.
959
960
e allowances or at e is aciryes antennis c
t
Don stated the language in No. 5 as modified for wastewater is adequate, the operator covers the
62 Ranch at Roaring Fork. The Ranch at Roaring Fork is an operator of their wastewater facility,
963 aren't they?
964 Tom Zancanella commented they were verging on a definition of a Colorado licensed operator
965 and Ranch at Roaring Fork is not.
966 Don - agreed.
967 Don then suggested that Condition No. 5 contained this suggested language - "that a fully
968 executed contract from a wastewater facility owner including a district for wastewater treatment
969 facility."
970 Chairman Smith inquired about No. 6 - do we even need No. 6 other than the first line?
971 Don - yes - normally they would have to come, start their first phase of development within one
972 year. This was discussed at Preliminary Planning and in addition to a contract, there are
973 questions of site approval, contracting, questions that have to be resolved and some of them have
974 to go through State and local governments - 18 months is appropriate. The Ranch at Roaring
975 Fork is still going to have to come in and modify their plat, so....
976 Nick Goluba stated "a fully executed contract for the wastewater facility owner or district to
977 provide wastewater treatment."
978 Don agreed this was better.
979 Nick Goluba - "to provide wastewater treatment serving Pershanna."
980 Don - better, yes. Then on water, No. 13 suggest - "execute a contract providing legal water
981 rights sufficient to support the water supply for this the Pershanna Farms PUD" and add #14 a
982 separate provision - you don't need another one because our own PUD regulations require
983 Preliminary Plan require them to have either a contract in place or to provide services for -
984 Eric - stated he had no additional changes.
985 Ron Liston stated for clarification purposes, on Item No. 4 - I think and it's clear to me that 47
986 units are within the two residential districts and the 3 employee housing units are in the
987 equestrian area.
988 Commissioner McCown - this is how I understand it.
989 Ron - there would be 2 and 1.
990 Commissioner Martin - seconded the motion.
991 Vote:
992 Martin - nay; Smith - aye; McCown - aye.
993
994 Commissioner Martin stated he had to go by his conscience. The master plan that we have in
995 place, the Comprehensive Plan needs to be followed and this is not following that and thinks the
996 Board is going outside the realm. We need to change the comp plan before the Board makes
997 these kinds of decisions.
998
999 PUBLIC HEARING: FOUR MILE RANCH SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAN - LOCATED SOUTH
1000
OF THE CITY LIMITS OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS OFF OF COUNTY ROAD 117. APPLICANT: FOUR
1001 MILE RANCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.
1002 Mark Bean, Lee Leavenworth and Don DeFord were present.
1003 Don reviewed the affidavits on notification and determined publication was adequate and the
1004 Board was entitled to proceed.
1005 Chairman Smith swore in the speakers.
1006 Mark submitted the following Exhibits: Exhibit A - Proof of Publication; Exhibit B - Proof of
1007 Publication; Exhibit C - Returned Receipts; Exhibit D - Project Information and Staff Report;
1008 Exhibit E - Subdivision Regulations; Exhibit F - Copy of the Garfield County Zoning
41 1009 Resolution of 1978 as amended; Exhibit G - Copy of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan
1010
for Study Area I; Exhibit H - Resolution No. 97-111 - Road Impacts; Exhibit I - Letter from the
1011 City of Glenwood Springs Planning Commission; Exhibit J - Letter from Colorado Geological
1012 Survey; Exhibit K - Letter from DOW; Exhibit L - Letter from School District RE -1; Exhibit M
1013 - Letter from the Division of Wildlife Resources; Exhibit N - Letter from Garfield County Road
1014 and Bridge; Exhibit 0 - Letter from Katherine Lucas and Ray Morgan (2 letters); Exhibit P -
1015 Letter from Jerry Glassnap ; Exhibit Q - Letter from Bershenyi Family; Exhibit R - Letter from
1016 Alan and Katherine Nelson; and Exhibit S - Letter from Historical Society (2 letters).
1017 Chairman Smith admitted Exhibits A - S into the record.
1018 Mark stated this is a request for Four Mile Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plan on a 138.773
1019 acre tract of land located south of Glenwood Springs off of County Road 117.
1020
�,tin
uJD-
"tiL� b)pi In i 6v) 5 v t/,9'� 18- (- Gis(L r
v - , CAA, pety p, (%r, ) `vu; i Gc`-ik-c'1 4
Arrm7-e-
Ltfuz6A -)2
Uv -e
())1A tyuc) )(AA--f-e-4A-4 u,?k,6
oaerej
wt
iacak.)0 30
ITB
" ;:cLv �— ne4a2Jc�'—
c/U/ 04c4 , cA)-U-0 ozAiku'eA
W%�